9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Barred by limitation - Recovery proceedings for a loan from 1986 2. Recovery of loan as arrears of land revenue 3. Sale made by U.P. Financial Corporation 4. Legality of proceeding against guarantors after taking possession of assets 5. Jurisdiction for recovery proceedings under specific acts Issue 1 - Barred by Limitation: The petitioners claimed that recovery proceedings for a loan from 1986 were time-barred. However, the court found that the petitioners failed to provide the necessary factual foundation or documents to support this claim. Moreover, the petitioners acknowledged their liability in letters to the U.P. Financial Corporation, which prevented the plea of limitation. The court concluded that the recovery proceedings against the guarantors were not barred by limitation. Issue 2 - Recovery of Loan as Arrears of Land Revenue: The petitioners argued that the loan given to the company could not be recovered as arrears of land revenue. They cited a Full Bench decision but failed to provide relevant documents for consideration. The court determined that the loan fell under the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, and not a State Sponsored Scheme, thus rejecting the petitioners' plea. Issue 3 - Sale Made by U.P. Financial Corporation: The petitioners questioned the sale of the company's assets by the U.P. Financial Corporation, alleging vague irregularities. However, the court noted that the petitioners did not establish a proper factual foundation for this claim. The court highlighted that the corporation had followed due process in the sale, offering the company an opportunity to purchase the assets. Issue 4 - Legality of Proceeding Against Guarantors After Taking Possession of Assets: The petitioners contended that after the corporation took possession of the company's assets, proceeding against the guarantors was not permissible. They relied on a previous case but failed to consider that the corporation had already sold the assets before initiating recovery proceedings against the guarantors. The court concluded that the previous case cited was not applicable to the present situation. Issue 5 - Jurisdiction for Recovery Proceedings Under Specific Acts: The petitioners argued that recovery proceedings should have been under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, instead of the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. The court noted a difference in opinions on this matter and referred the case for further consideration. Pending a final decision, the court allowed the U.P. Financial Corporation to proceed under specific acts for recovery. In conclusion, the court directed the case to be listed after a related judgment for further clarity. The interim order was modified to allow the U.P. Financial Corporation to proceed under specific acts for recovery, pending the final decision in the related case.
|
