HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Reserved on 22-09-2015 Delivered on 11-12-2015 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14354 of 2002 Petitioner :- Ram Autar Respondent :- U.P.F.C. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.F.A. Naqvi,Anil Kumar Srivastava,Mohit Kumar,Rakesh Pandey,Siddharth Nandan,Sunil Kr.Srivastava,Sushil Shukla,Udai Chandani Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,D.R.Sharma,Manish Goel,Nripendra Mishra,S. Chaturvedi,S.K.Sharma Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.
Hon'ble Amar Singh Chauhan, J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishna Murari, J.) Heard Sri T.P.Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Nandan for the petitioner and Sri Ranjit Saxena and Sri Nripendra Mishra appearing for the U.P. Financial Corporation.
Respondents no. 9, 10 & 11 are represented by Sri Diwakar Rai Sharma, Sri Suresh Kumar Suresh Kumar Sharma and Sri Manish Goyal.
Sri Diwakar Rai Sharma made a statement before us on 05.05.2015 that his instruction has been withdrawn and subsequently, Sri Manish Goyal was engaged.
Sri Manish Goyal on being put to notice on 04.08.2014 made a statement before us that he has no instruction in the matter.
Though the respondents no. 9, 10 & 11 are represented by three learned counsel but no one has appeared for want of instruction.
By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus to command the respondents not to sale, auction and settle the property of M/s. R.R. Steels & Alloys Limited situate in village Khalilpur/Jaharpur, C.B. Ganj, Bareilly in favour of any person. A further writ of mandamus is also claimed to command the respondents to settle the property in question in favour of the petitioner for which he had made an offer of Rs. 60 Lacs. During the pendency of the writ petition, following prayers were added by way of amendment :
"1) writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned letter/order dated 10.08.2001 purporting to be passed by the respondent no. 3 (Regional Manager, U.P.F.C., Bareilly);
2) writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 12.06.2002 as well as order dated 28.6.2002;
3) writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the sale deed dated 02.08.2002 executed by the respondent Corporation in favour of respondents no. 9 to 11."
Facts of the case giving rise to dispute are as under :
Petitioner Ram Autar (since deceased now represented by petitioners no. 1/1 to 1/3) established a Private Limited Company in the name and style M/s.R.R.Steels & Alloys Pvt. Limited for manufacturing and fabricating nickel cartings and alloy steel etc. at C.B. Ganj, Bareilly. A loan of Rs.7.5 Lacs was sanctioned by the respondent U.P. State Financial Corporation on 02.05.1963 for purchase of plant and machinery. Out of the sanctioned amount of Rs.7.5 Lacs, only a sum of Rs.7.11 Lacs was actually disbursed. For the said reason and various other reasons, the company became sick and finally production was stopped and there was default in repayment to the respondent-Corporation. Notice under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act (for short the 'Act') for taking over possession was issued on 12.12.1983. Physical possession of the manufacturing unit was taken over by Corporation on 15.03.1985 and thereafter, machines and some part of the building construction were disposed of for a sum of Rs. 9 Lacs in 1990-1991 and the remaining building/structure was also sold in November, 1991 for Rs.2.65 Lacs leaving behind only open land at the site. It is alleged by the petiitoner that in all a sum of Rs.7.11 Lacs was paid by him towards principal amount and a sum of Rs.8,51,301.67 towards interest.
In view of a scheme of the respondent Corporation for one time settlement (in short 'OTS'), the petitioner also made an application admitting a sum of Rs. 4 Lacs due for payment and as per the guidelines a sum of Rs.40,000/- being 10% of the accepted outstanding dues was deposited before the respondent no. 2 as earnest money. Vide letter dated 08.02.2000 the Deputy General Manager, 2nd respondent required the petitioner to confirm the proposal submitted by him. Petitioner vide his letter dated 6.03.2000 through its authorized signatory confirmed the proposal submitted by him for one time settlement, with a request to take an early decision. Despite various correspondence and communication, the respondent Corporation instead of considering the proposal submitted by the petitioner for one time settlement, published a notice in daily newspaper 'Amar Ujala' on 20.05.2000 for auction of the landed property. Petitioner challenged the auction notice dated 20.5.2000 by filing writ petition no. 45678 of 2008, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.10.2000 by making following orders :
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner's application for OTS, annexure - 7 & 8 to the writ petition, are pending before the respondent no. 2, this petition is disposed of with a direction for the said respondent to dispose of the said application and until they are disposed of the property in question cannot be auctioned."
Despite aforesaid order, the respondent Corporation did not take a decision on the OTS proposal. Petitioner again wrote a letter dated 11.1.2002 addressed to the Managing Director of the respondent Corporation making an offer of Rs.55 Lacs. Petitioner also met the General Manager who advised him to deposit Rs.5.50 Lacs along with a fresh letter for O.T.S. Petitioner submitted another letter dt. 24.1.2002 along with bank draft of Rs.5.50 Lacs drawn on Corporation Bank. In the meantime, having come to know that Corporation was contemplating to accept the offer of some third person vide his letter dt. 16.2.2002 raised his offer to Rs.60 Lacs and to pay the balance outstanding with a month.
On getting information that the respondent-Corporation is about to settle the property in question in favour of some persons, ignoring the offer of Rs.60 Lacs made by the petitioner, for a lesser amount, he approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.
In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Corporation, it was disclosed that in pursuance of the auction notice dated 20.5.2000 published in the newspaper, an offer of Rs.40 Lacs was made by four persons namely, Sri Sanjiv Gupta, Pradip Kumar, Om Prakash Singh and Kishan Pal Singh. After negotiation they enhanced the offer to Rs.45 Lacs. The Settlement Committee on 06.11.2001 approved the sale on a consideration of Rs.50 Lacs on certain terms and conditions which included down payment of Rs.25 Lacs within 30 days, balance payment of Rs.25 Lacs in eleven equal quarterly instalments of Rs.2.08 Lacs each, with last instalment of Rs.2.12 Lacs to be paid on or before 15.11.2004 and OTS proposal submitted by the petitioner through Sri Mahesh Chand was rejected on 10.8.2001. Counter affidavit also revealed that the sale deed dated 02.08.2002 has been executed by the respondent Corporation in favour of one M/s.Pragati Associates, a partnership firm consisting of Smt. Priti Agarwal wife of Dr. ajay Agarwal and Smt. Mithilesh Sharma wife of Sri Shiv Shankar Sharma as partners. Thereafter, the petitioner amended the writ peititon and added further reliefs, which have been extracted hereinbefore and also impleaded the auction purchaser.
Vide order dated 29.8.2002 a Division Bench stayed execution of the sale deed though by the said time sale deed had already been executed. Another Division Bench while hearing the matter on 01.12.2014 directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.50 Lacs along with 12% interest per annum with the Registrar General of this Court to establish his bonafide regarding the offer made by him. Following order was passed on 01.12.2014 :
"We have heard Shri Siddharth Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Nripendra Mishra, learned counsel for the Corporation.
No one appears for the auction purchaser.
We find that the auction purchaser has paid a sum of Rs. 50 lacs to the corporation pursuant to the auction. This auction has been challenged by the petitioner by filing an amendment application. We also find that the execution of the sale deed has been stayed by this Court.
In order to show the bona fides, we direct the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 50 lacs plus interest on the aforesaid amount to be calculated at the rate of 12% per annum. This amount should be deposited within four weeks from today before the Registrar General.
List on 7 January 2015. "
In compliance of the order, the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs.1.28 crore through bank draft with the Registrar General of this Court on 03.01.2015. The Registrar General has kept the amount deposited by the petitioners in fixed deposit with the Allahabad Bank.
Further facts relevant for the purpose for adjudicating the dispute have been revealed from perusal of the original records of the Financial Corporation produced by Sri Ranjit Saxena in compliance of the Court's order dated 25.08.2015. The said facts are as under :
In pursuance of the advertisement issued by the U.P. Financial Corporation for auction of the land, the offer was jointly made by four persons namely, Sanjiv Gupta, Pradip Kumar, Om Prakash Singh and Kishan Pal Singh and the sale was approved in their favour. However, subsequently one of the co-purchaser Pradip Kumar died and the remaining three constituted a partnership firm in the name and style M/s.Pragati Associates which constituted of six persons namely, three persons who initially made the offer, Smt. Satyawati Upadhyay, Smt. Preeti Agarwal and Smt. Mithilesh Sharma. The respondent Corporation was given information of the aforesaid fact by the three purchasers namely, Sanjiv Gupta, Om Prakash Singh and Kishan Pal Singh vide letter dated 19.4.2002. Respondent Corporation vide letter dated 22.6.2002 accepted the request subject to certain conditions one of which was all the partners will have to provide personal guarantee to repay the dues of the Corporation in personal capacity and before executing the legal agreement for sale the entire overdues as per the terms and conditions will have to be cleared. An agreement dated 27.7.2002 was executed between M/s. Pragati Associates through its partners and U.P. Financial Corporation categorically mentioning that the partnership firm has purchased the land from the Corporation for a consideration of Rs.50 Lacs on the terms and conditions contained in sale letter dated 20.11.2001 and the purchasers have deposited a sum of Rs.25 Lacs and balance is to be paid within three years in eleven quarterly instalment of Rs.2.08 Lac each and last quarterly instalment of Rs.2.11 Lacs. The terms and conditions of the agreement further contained a stipulation that the purchaser shall comply all legal formalities as may be required by the Corporation and will ensure execution of the sale deed within a period not exceeding three months from the date of this agreement, failing which the Corporation shall have the right to forfeit the deposit and re-enter possession of the land. The agreement also contained a stipulation that sale consideration payable on deferred payment basis shall carry interest @ 16% per annum till full and final payment is made and on default being made in payment of interest pm deferred sale consideration, Corporation shall be entitled to charge interest @3.5% per annum over and above the interest of 16% per annum for the defaulted period and on the defaulted amount. The partners of the firm executed a contract of personal guarantee on 27.7.2002 and thereafter, a registered sale deed was executed by the Corporation in favour of M/s.Pragati Associates on 02.08.2002.
A notice dated 26.10.2002 was issued by M/s.Pragati Associates to the U.P. Financial Corporation through its Advocate informing that since the fact of pending litigation in respect of the property purchased was not disclosed, as such, M/s.Pragati Associates was not liable to pay the quarterly instalment as agreed. The Corporation was further put to notice to get the interim order passed by this Court in this writ petition vacated at the earliest and after getting the said information, M/s.Pragati Associates shall perform its part of contract and pay the quarterly instalment. Legal notice was replied by the Corporation vide letter dated 11.12.2002 requiring M/s.Pragati Associates to pay the entire dues including interest and other charges within 15 days from the date of receipt of the reply in terms of the agreement/sale deed, failing which coercive action shall be ensured. The record further reveals that the instalments due were not paid by M/s.Pragati Associates and the respondent Corporation issued a notice dated 20.8.2013 requiring them to make payment of the balance sale consideration along with interest and other charges immediately, failing which coercive action shall be taken. Subsequently, the respondent Corporation issued a notice dated 01.10.2003 under Section 29 of the Act for making outstanding dues, failing which physical possession shall be taken.
There is nothing on the original records to indicate that any payment was made by M/s.Pragati Associates towards the outstanding balance consideration. But it appears that a request dated 15.12.2006 was made for one time settlement. Since the original record contains minutes of the meeting of the Settlement Committee dated 12.1.2000, which records that after vigorous persuation, the partners of the firm agreed for OTS I on O.S.P. + Expenses + 100% S.I. at a documented rate and deposited Rs.5 Lacs on 15.2.2006, hence, the Committee decided to approve the OTS proposal of M/s.Pragati Associates. In accordance with the decision taken by the Settlement Committee, the Regional Manager of the respondent Corporation issued a letter dated 25.01.2007 informing Smt. Preeti Agarwal and Sri Satyawati Upadhyay that OTS proposal of Rs.15,69,000/- has been approved, which was to be paid as under :
i) Earnest money (already paid) Rs. 5,00,000/- ii) Balance within one month of communication of approval letter Rs.10,69,000/- ---------------- Rs.15,69,000/- ----------------
The other terms and conditions enumerated was that in case balance OTS amount was not paid within one month from the date of issue of the letter then the proposal shall stand rejected and entire liability shall become due. Thus the Corporation waived all the interest due till 20.12.2006. Although there is nothing on record to indicate payment in accordance with the OTS proposal accepted by the Corporation but there exists 'No Dues Certificate' issued under the signature of the Regional Manager in the name of Smt.Preeti Agarwal and Smt.Satyawati Upadhyay describing them to be partners of M/s.Pragati Associates certifying that settled OTS has been received has been received in full and there is no outstanding towards amount as agreed under OTS. However, 'no dues certificate' has been made subject to the condition that decision of this Court in this writ petition shall be binding upon the firm/partners of the firm at their own cost and risk. Thereafter, a request letter dated 07.06.2007 was written by Smt.Preeti Agarwal to release the sale deed to her representative Sri Rifaquat Ali. The respondent Corporation vide letter dated 02.07.2007 informed that the sale deed cannot be released on the request made by one one of the partner and consent of other partner namely, Smt. Satyawati Upadhyay was also required. Smt. Satyawati Devi through her legal power of attorney Dr. Gopal Upadhyay informed the Corporation not to release the sale deed to Smt. Preeti Agarwal because her intention is malafide. Following facts emerge out from the perusal of the original records :
I. In response to the advertisement issued by the respondent Corporation, a joint offer was made for purchase of the property by four persons namely, Sanjiv Gupta, Pradip Kumar, Om Prakash Singh and Kishan Pal Singh.
II. After death of Pradip Kumar, the remaining three constituted a partnership firm by the name of M/s.Pragati Associates, with three more partners namely, Smt. Preeti Agarwal, Smt. Satyawati Upadhyay and Smt. Mithilesh Sharma.
III. Registered agreement dated 27.7.2002 was executed between M/s.Pragati Associates through all its six partners and U.P. Financial Corporation.
IV. Contract of personal guarantee dated 27.7.2002 was executed by all the six partners of the firm.
V. Registered sale deed dated 02.08.2002 was executed in favour of M/s.Pragati Associates, the partnership firm though its partners Smt. Preeti Agarwal and Smt. Mithilesh Sharma who have been described in the sale deed as vendee.
VI. Notice under Section 29 of the Act was issued in the name of M/s.Pragati Associates as well as all the six partners.
VII. Letter dated 25.01.2007 regarding acceptance of the OTS proposal was issued only in the name of Smt. Preeti Agarwal and Smt. Satyawati Upadhyay describing them as partners of M/s.Pragati Associates.
VIII. 'No dues certificate' was also issued in the name of Smt. Preeti Agarwal and Smt. Satyawati Upadhyay.
IX. Letter dated 02.07.2007 issued by the Corporation only records that the consent of all other partners namely, Smt. Satyawati Upadhyay was also necessarily required to release the sale deed.
It is thus clear that initial offer though was jointly made by four persons but subsequently a partnership firm was constituted by inducting two more persons. However, on default notice under Section 29 of the Act was issued to all the six partners. Acceptance of OTS proposal was conveyed only two of them namely, Smt. Preeti Agarwal and Smt. Satyawati Upadhyay. The sale deed was executed in the name of only two partners namely, Smt. Preeti Agarwal and Smt. Mithilesh Sharma. 'No dues certificate' was issued in the name of Smt. Preeti Agarwal and Smt. Satyawati Upadhyay.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation has not been able to explain before us the above noted discrepancies.
In the background of the above noted facts, the question which arises before us for adjudication is whether the U.P. Financial Corporation acted malafidely and in violation of Section 29 of the State Financial Act and its own policy of one time settlement by transferring the land of the debtor petitioner in favour of M/s.Pragati Associates through its partners. The other question which arises for consideration is whether the action of respondent Corporation in rejecting the offer of Rs.60 Lacs made by the petitioner and accepting the offer of M/s.Pragati Associates of a lesser amount and subsequently waving the interest due from it on outstanding balance and setting for a still lesser amount can be said to be justified and reasonable and in accordance with the Statute.
Section 29 of the State Financial Act reads as under :
"29. Rights of Financial Corporation in case of default.(1) Where any industrial concern, which is under a liability to the Financial Corporation under an agreement, makes any default in repayment of any loan or advance or any instalment thereof or in meeting its obligations in relation to any guarantee given by the Corporation or otherwise fails to comply with the terms of its agreement with the Financial Corporation, the Financial Corporation shall have the right to take over the management or possession or both of the industrial concerns, as well as the right to transfer by way of lease or sale and realise the property pledged, mortgaged, hypothecated or assigned to the Financial Corporation.
(2) Any transfer of property made by the Financial Corporation, in exercise of its powers under sub-section (1), shall vest in the transferee all rights in or to the property transferred as if the transfer had been made by the owner of the property.
(3) The Financial Corporation shall have the same rights and powers with respect to goods manufactured or produced wholly or partly from goods forming part of the security held by it as it had with respect to the original goods.
(4) Where any action has been taken against an industrial concern under the provisions of sub-section (1), all costs, charges and expenses which in the opinion of the Financial Corporation have been properly incurred by it as incidental thereto shall be recoverable from the industrial concern and the money which is received by it shall, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, be held by it in trust to be applied firstly, in payment of such costs, charges and expenses and, secondly, in discharge of the debt due to the Financial Corporation, and the residue of the money so received shall be paid to the person entitled thereto.
(5) Where the Financial Corporation has taken any action against an industrial concern under the provisions of sub-section (1), the Financial Corporation shall be deemed to be the owner of such concern, for the purposes of suits by or against the concern, and shall sue and be sued in the name of the concern."
The provisions of Section 29 has been subject matter of interpretation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in several decisions. Reference may be made to the judgment rendered in the case of M/s S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in [2004 (7) SCC 166], wherein while setting aside the impugned sale, it was observed as under :
"17. It is axiomatic that the statutory powers vested in the State Financial Corporation under the State Financial Corporation Act, must be exercised bonafide. The presumption that public officials will discharge their duties honestly and in accordance with the law may be rebutted by establishing circumstances which reasonably probablize the abuse of that power. In such event it is for the concerned officer to explain the circumstances which are set up against him. If there is no credible explanation forthcoming the Court can assume that the impugned action was improper [See: M/s Pannalal Binjraj & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1957 SC 397, 409]. Doubtless some of the restrictions placed on State Financial Corporations exercising their powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, as prescribed in Mahesh Chandra v. Regional Manager, U.P. Financial Corpn. 1993 (2) SCC 279, are no longer in place in view of the subsequent decision in Haryana Financial State Corporation v. Jagdamba Oils Mills. However, in over-ruling the decision in Mahesh Chandra, this Court has affirmed the view taken in Chairman and Managing Director; SIPCOT, Madras v. Contromix Pvt. Ltd. 1995 (4) SCC 595 and said that in the matter of sale under section 29, the State Financial Corporation must act in accordance with the statute and must not act unfairly i.e. unreasonably. If they do their action can be called into question under Article 226. Reasonableness is to be tested against the dominant consideration to secure the best price for the property to be sold. "This can only be achieved when there is a maximum participation in the process of sale and everybody has an opportunity of making an offer. Public auction after adequate publicity ensures participation of every person who is interesting in purchasing the property and generally secures the best price".
18. Adequate publicity to ensure maximum participation of bidders in turn requires that a fair and practical period of time must be given to purchasers to effectively participate in the sale. Unless the subject matter of sale is of such a nature which requires immediate disposal, an opportunity must be given to the possible purchaser who is required to purchase the property on 'As is where is basis' to inspect it and to give a considered offer with the necessary financial support to deposit the earnest money and pay the offered amount, if required."
In R.D. Setty v. International Airport Authority of India, AIR 1979 SC 1628, it has been observed as under :
"Now, obviously where a Corporation is an instrumentality or agency of the government, it would in the exercise of its power or discretion, be subject to the same constitutional or public law limitation as Government. The rule in habiting arbitrary action of the Government which we have discussed above must apply equally where such Corporation is dealing with the public whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts or otherwise and it cannot act arbitrarily and enter into relationship with any person like at its sweet will, but its action must be in conformity with some principles which meets the test of reason and relevance.
In Kasturi Lal Laxmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmit, AIR 1980 SC 1992, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :
"Where any Government action fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness and public interest discussed above and is found to be wanting in quality of reasonableness or lacking in the element of public interest it would be liable to be struck down as invalid. It must follow as a necessary corollary from this proposition that the Government cannot act in a manner which would benefit a private party at the cost of the State; such an action would be both unreasonable and contrary to public interest. The Government, therefore, cannot for example give a contract or sell or lease out its property for a consideration less than the highest that can be obtained for it, unless of course, there are other considerations which render it reasonable and in public interest to do so."
In view of the exposition of law by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, we have to examine the action of the respondent Corporation in selling the property in favour of M/s.Pragati Associates on the touch of reasonableness and public interest. We find that initial offer of Rs.40 Lacs made by four persons namely, Sanjiv Gupta, Pradip Kumar, Om Prakash Singh and Kishan Pal Singh, was increased by them after negotiations to Rs.45 Lacs. However, the Settlement Committee on 04.10.2001 approved the sale of the land for a sum of Rs.50 Lacs, with Rs.25 Lacs as down payment and balance within three years in equal quarterly instalments but subsequently, the sale was approved in favour of a partnership firm constituted by them by inducting three more persons. An agreement was executed with the partnership firm so constituted, namely, M/s.Pragati Associates consisting of six partners. However, the sale deed was executed in favour of the firm specifying only three partners as vendee in the registered deed.
Admittedly, there was a default committed by M/s.M/s.Pragati Associates in payment of instalment of deferred sale consideration. Though a higher offer of Rs.60 Lacs made by the petitioners was rejected by the respondent Corporation for no cogent, sound and legal reason still the one time settlement offered by M/s.Pragati Associates was accepted and interest was waived. We see no reason for the respondent Corporation to reject the higher offer made by the petitioners who were the promoters in view of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gajraj Jain v. State of Bihar and others, (2004) 7 SCC 151 that in case a public notice is issued inviting tender the Corporation is obliged to call for matching offer from the Directors/Promoters/Guarantors.
In the case in hand, there is nothing on record to indicate that after offer was made jointly by four persons, the Corporation called upon the petitioners to make a matching offer rather offer of higher amount made by the petitioners suo motu was rejected for no rhyme and reason. Furthyer no reason has been given by the respondent Corporation as to why it did not accept the higher offer of the petitioners and rejected their OTS proposal and not only accepted the lower offer of M/s.Pragati Associates but subsequently accepted the OTS proposal and by waiving of the interest settled it at a still lower amount. The petitioners have proved their bonafide by depositing a sum of Rs.50 Lacs along with interest @ 12% p.a., total Rs.1.28 crore, with the Registrar General of this Court.
Most of the facts, which have been noticed by us from perusal of the original record of the Corporation, have not been disclosed in the counter affidavit. There is nothing on record to indicate that more than one bid was received in pursuance of the auction notice. There is no reason forthcoming why only one bid offer was accepted and why matching offer was not called for from the petitioners and most importantly a higher offer made by the petitioners suo motu was rejected for no reason.
In conclusion, we are satisfied that the respondent Corporation has misused its authority and power in breach of law by taking into account extraneous matters and ignoring relevant matters which has rendered all its acts ultra vires.
In the result, writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
The sale of land in favour of M/s.Pragati Associates through its partners dated 02.08.2002 executed by the respondent Corporation is set aside and shall not be given effect to. The respondent Corporation shall be entitled to receive the amount deposited by the petitioners with the Registrar General of this Court along with interest which might have accrued on the investment, which shall be in full and final satisfaction of outstanding liability, if any, of the petitioners towards the loan. The possession of the land shall stand restored back to the petitioners.
It shall, however, be open to M/s.Pragati Associates through its partners to settle their accounts with the U.P. Financial Corporation on account of setting aside of the sale deed in its favour in accordance with law.
In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
Dt.11.12.2015 nd.