SALIL CHANDRA Vs. COLLECTOR DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Writ Petition No. 7822 of 1999 was filed against the recovery certificate dated 6-11-1998 and citation dated 18-2-1999 (vide Annexures 10 and 9 to the writ petition. This recovery and citation was regarding recovery of huge amount of money towards the loan taken by the petitioners which had not been re-paid as scheduled.

(3.) The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed on merits by the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 24-2-1999. The aforesaid judgment dated 24-2-1999 states as follows : The petitioners mention nothing about a notice under S. 29 in the present writ petition, but has taken a ground that the notice which was issued for taking over the possession was without any opportunity. The Court mentions this fact because during the course of consideration of the petition at admission, the Court was giving an indulgence to the petitioners to come to terms with the U.P. Financial Corporation under a one time settlement. The record illudes the notice under S. 29 whereas on page 189, Annexure 12 to the writ petition, against item No. 7, the name of Messers. Shakti Glass Technical (Private) Limited has been mentioned. This is the company of which the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are Directors. In the array of parties, the company, Messers Shakti Glass Technical (Private) Limited, had not been made a party until the Court indicated it so. The company was made a party, thereafter. With a S. 29 notice advertised as a public advertisement, which advertisement was issued on 19 August, 1998 and not being made part of the record, there is nothing the Court can grant as an indulgence to the petitioners. Dismissed."