- (1.) This first Appeal From Order has been filed by the U.P. Financial Corporation against an order passed by the Trial Court on 7.5.1991 whereby the application moved by the plaintiff respondent for a temporary injunction has been allowed.
(2.) According to the facts brought on record the plaintiff had setup an industry in the industrial area of Mathura and started production some times in August, 1978. The appellant and the U.P. Small Industrial Corporation, U.P., State Industrial Development Corporation and the Punjab National Bank had committed to provide working capital but the same was not made available on account of inter-se wranglings between them. The plaintiffs allegation was that the loan was advanced to it after long delay and because of lack of coordination between the various departments the plaintiff could not put the industry in a proper running condition in the meantime the appellant raised a demand for the repayment of loan instalment from it. It appears that the controversy between the parties could not be resolved for a long time but ultimately on 24.2.1990 the appellant made a proposal for settlement of loan if the plaintiff paid Rs. 3,22,000/- in three equal instalments payable on 30th March, 1990, 30th June, 1990 and 30th September, 1990. The aforesaid letter dated 24th March 1990 was itself received by the plaintiff on 30th March, 1990 and it was impossible for it to make any arrangement for the payment of the entire amount of Rs. 1,08,000/- on the same day. Despite this difficulty the plaintiff managed to pay Rs. 25,000/ by two cheques of the same date but one of them was dishonoured by the bank and immediately thereafter the plaintiff paid the amount through bank draft drawn on Union Bank of India, Mathura on 30th April, 1990. Some other payments are also alleged to have been made but we are not concerned about the same in the present appeal. The case of the plaintiff further was that had it been requesting the appellant to give reasonable time for complying with the one time settlement proposal and also wrote on 2.5.1990 to grant time for making all the payments yet the said request was turned down and on 8.5.1990 the one time settlement proposal was also cancelled. Thereafter the defendant appellant started threatening the plaintiff for recovery of the amount by taking possession of the premises and auctioning the same. Consequently the present suit was filed on 11.7.1990 and the plaintiff also prayed for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering in the running of the industry by the plaintiff by sale of the same of by taking over possession of the said industry. The application was resisted by the appellant on several grounds and it was mentioned that the possession over the property had already been taken and the same had been allotted to a third person. Several legal pleas were also taken and it was urged that no injunction could be granted against the appellant to restrain it from realising the amount due from the plaintiff.
(3.) The Trial Court was impressed by the pleas of the plaintiff and came to the conclusion that the conduct of the defendant appellant had not been fair and it should have given reasonable sufficient time to enable the plaintiff to pay up the instalments under the one time settlement scheme although it was also of the view that at least when, according to the plaintiff's own admission, it was liable to pay Rs. 3,22,000/- to the defendant Corporation. The said amount ought to be paid.;