RAMA KANT RAI Vs. COLLECTOR DEORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner is challenging the impugned recovery certificate for Rs. 10. 28,66. 063/ -. One of the grounds, taken by the petitioner who is guarantor of the loan, is that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 as recovery certificate was issued on 20-6-2002. On the facts of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned recovery certificate in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) MOREOVER, writ is issued when both Law and equity are in favour of the petitioner. If the petitioner only shows violation of Law but there is no equity in his favour a writ need not be issued. In the present case neither Law nor equity is in favour of the petitioner. He does not deny being guarantor of the loan, and he is liable.