B.K.Roy, P.K.Jain, JJ. - (1.) The petitioners have come up with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to transfer or auction the properties of petitioner No. 1 without first assessing their value through a Government approved valuer and ascertaining accounting and adjusting value of the transfers already made by the respondent Nos. 10 and 11. On their prayer vide order dated 12.7.1995, the Court passed an interim order staying auction of the properties until further orders.
(2.) According to the petitioners, petitioner No. 2 and respondent Nos. 6 to 8 are partners of petitioner No. 1. M/s. Balaji Oil and Dal Mill, which is a partnership firm. On an application filed by the firm, the U. P. Financial Corporation sanctioned a loan of Rs. 10.35 lacs though the firm received Rs. 10.03 lacs only. The firm suffered loss resulting in institution of Insolvency Case No. 2 of 1991 filed by respondent Nos. 7 and 8 and Insolvency Case No. 3 of 1991 filed by petitioner No. 2 and respondent No. 6. Both cases are pending in the Court of Insolvency/Civil Judge, Etah who appointed respondent No. 10 Hari Om Verma (who appears to be husband of respondent No. 8 as also stated by Sri Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner] to look after the properties of the firm and save it from recovery of electrical dues. Subsequently in place of respondent No. 10, respondent No. 1 1 was appointed to look after the properties. After some time respondent No. 11 was also removed and respondent No. 10 resumed control and custody of the firm and his of nefarious activities to the utter disadvantage of the firm. Petitioner No. 2 lodged a first information report on 15.3.1993 against him, which was registered as Case Crime No. 182/93 police station Sahawar, district Etah under Section 406/411, I.P.C. He moved this Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. in a Criminal Misc. Application and managed stay of his arrest. Respondent No. 10 in collusion with respondent No. 9 (Insolvency Judge/Civil Judge, Etah) is continuing to mint money whereas petitioner No. 2 is running from pillar to post for redressal of his grievances, the action of the respondents is calculated to auction/dispose of the properties of the petitioner No. 1 which are manifestly erroneous in law, arbitrary, discriminatory, mala fide, perverse and without jurisdiction and they are wilfully violating the mandatory provision of Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 even though the petitioners and respondent Nos. 6 to 8 were and are still agreeable to repay the loan taken from U. P. Financial Corporation.
(3.) In the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it has been stated, inter alia, that vide an application dated 30.11.1987 the firm applied for grant of loan of Rs. 15.45 lacs for setting up an Oil and Dal Mill ; the Corporation, sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 10.20 lacks : after completion of the formalities, the loan agreement and hypothecation deed were executed and signed by all the partners of the firm and thereafter the Corporation disbursed a sum of Rs. 10,03,800 lacs in favour of petitioner No. 1, the litigations appear to be instituted collusively with an intention to escape from the liability of payment of the genuine dues of the Corporation ; the properties of the firm stand mortgaged with the Corporation which has its first charge over the entire assets of the petitioner No. 1 ; the petitioner No. 1 having defaulted in payment of its dues, the Corporation has a valuable right to realise them and had Initiated action for their realisation against the firm and its partners by issuing a recovery certificate in the year 1992 as arrears of land revenue ; no action under Section 29 of the Act was initiated against the petitioner firm and misleading and confused statements have been made for the purpose of obtaining an order from this Court, a sum of Rs. 19,334.80 was sought to be recovered towards electrical dues and for that purpose respondent No. 5 has attached the properties of the petitioner No. 1 whereas the Corporation is interested and pursuing the recovery of its dues after giving full opportunity to repay its dues and accordingly the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with special cost.;