TMI Blog2007 (12) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (M/B) of 2006. 3. Basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Appellant is a cooperative society (Samiti). It applied for loan for establishment of an industry for manufacturing 'Aluminum Pottery' from the respondents. A loan of ₹ 5,24,000/- was sanctioned in the year 1991. A Sum of ₹ 3,09,000/- was released by the respondents. Again, a sum of ₹ 90,000/- was sanctioned in 1996. It filed an application for grant of loan of ₹ 22,00,000/- under the 'Consortium Bank Credit Scheme' for establishing an unit for manufacturing P.V.C. Shoe Sole. A sum of ₹ 16,20,000/- was sanctioned and ₹ 13,20,000/- was released. The Samiti allegedly defaulted in making payments. Recovery proceedings were i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing of four writ petitions on the same cause of action and, thus, it was not maintainable. Appellants are, thus, before us. 7. Mr. Uma Datta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, would submit that the statement made by the writ petitioners that no other writ petition was filed on the same cause of action was correct as from a perusal of the four writ applications, reference whereof was made by the High Court in its impugned judgment, it would appear that they were filed on different causes of action. 8. Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri and Mr. Girdhar G. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that in different writ petitions, the petitioners questioned the recovery proc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing terms, it is not necessary to reiterate the same over again. However, therein in the peculiar fact of the matter, it was observed: 20. In this case, however, suppression of filing of the suit is no longer a material fact. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court may be correct that, in a case of this nature, the court's jurisdiction may not be invoked but that would not mean that another writ petition would not lie. When another writ petition is filed disclosing all the facts, the appellant would be approaching the writ court with a pair of clean hands, the court at that point of time will be entitled to determine the case on merits having regard to the human right of the appellant to access to jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the recovery certificates dated 10.09.2002 had been issued earlier before filing of the writ petition. In view of the facts, it is submitted that there was no occasion for the petitioner no. 2 joining hand with so-called Sanstha, the petitioner no. 1 challenged these recovery certificates. The challenge, which was made by the petitioners before the Lucknow Bench, Allahabad, High Court was clearly an abuse of the process of Court. In the said counter-affidavit, it has further been disclosed that after being unsuccessful in their attempt to stall the recovery proceedings against the Samiti, a fictitious welfare Sanstha, namely, Udhyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha was started by Appellant No. 2. We, therefore, are of the opi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
