;??-" "T~ 1^'®b"®aH-Si,ISRI%^ MOiiosHTa^o ,. ^f^\w ®®o~r£mR'ST5%nS~T3o-"aoOT®5T^as-TOmT 30^ SSlIffl I3S ?!65~®I,-SOJ^Z~S.10'SS V K3. OHa N0 fTTOaT^^' '&'H !. 1.0 29ti - Teaoqs: 'J'BS'BN- d'Eq'BJ.3: ^U'BJ'BCf'BliT ' I.-SHO^ ' S61. 'o KT 4073- ses3ws- MT 'joaosjTa SiiTS'ea'epi eqi sqSnojq^ 'WT. aoTtBjodjoo q.as(ndoT:8Ae (T -[•eTj'j.snpai sq.e'is qesp^ja s^qp^N iMdKOdgSS snsjSA (QI'BgS T'l'i.'Eiq t?0 )TIO'E§pH'eUC'Eg ' ATOTOO TCTPHTE ' S'eq'T'ei 'S'OR sas'1 o/^: SJ'EB^ o+i ^noq'e psS'B '•BftiTP'BK T?TT.i'ECTpJT9 'PCIB o/g •Bftqp'eM piiWfOsejqs joqoe.t-Fa §ttTS'Ba'BH 8tB; sqSaojqE •pq.'I ea^A-cja ssTje-n:t3.sTa y ssSBjsnsg •GasdTBs S/N 000-5/~~'~^TT~'OS VtO-C.IVi.Qd tTJH aaBviiassHiB'^^cLcao ssiuo'iB-isiswsimTOro s.m w 'HsSoir.Tiga fciiiitofettiV^^w^" Ei:,; !!lj ^inj? •3 -g -TiT?T^T5, sS'fTi-iT'Ts, TtftTR-T'qj Ui-P-iOO . l\%li^-"°o / >li<-S?tr eSi^fWi 'Wl 201 ^Ii^T Tl^?' ('^t^^'^) iffRRTai- -WTcff 'q fe%t ^n~<5R ^ aiRm a:fftn Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, 4dvocate for the petitioner. Shri P. Diwakar, Ad^cate for fh.e respendent. Heard. j '. The petitioaer has pled fhis petition on the grouiid that fhe property has beeu attact|ed and ia spite of bis efforts, setUeraent could not be inade. . j Coiuisel for the resjaondent on the other hand subniitted ttiat Rs. 44 lacs was given toifhe petitioner in the year 1991 and as on. 30-9-2000 the amount copies to about Rs. 2,54,00,000/-. Shri Tiwari subiniljted that during fhis period he subinilted certain proposals aad re|)rcsentations but representations have not been decided and fhe decpion, if aiiy, has not been coininuiucated to a. The inatter is pendu^g ia. this Court. On 15-12-2000 w|ien the matter came up for hearing, this Court passed aa order fh^t fh.e Corporation inay auction flie unit but bid wiU not be fuialized dor the v.ait shaU be traasferred io. favouT of anv biddcr uiitil further of-der froiu this Court. Sbri Diwakar su^iaitted that ffae Corporation bas not Sbri Tiwan subinjitted that fhe petitioner is iiiterestecL ia 1 rescheduleiuent and setUenient. Shri Diwakar on fhe other harid i 1 submitted that the pro|)osals have to be genuine and viable, as Having consideredj the facts and circumstan.ces of the case, .3BateTdri-<>B- JECoid.^ridlj3avm^.,heard..jtheJeajm£d_coun for fhe ;<n ::!Ti:5( s" f5T"?; g l|l|itllitNt^i^a- —_._! /^^j Iff^ 1 <S'm -t, i-'fln u, ©•"i'y'rs,T'M'"TRI1yc UJ-P'IUO. t) ^^oc.o •qT%:iTWWeB-"----^"-:""^::-'''-ULt^200 (^=1 ^£t" L.S- iTwyi^?) TTS.IW ^rfN snS!?! ^sNwih ~w/9 ^ fs^t -rfSti^r ^i'aTCmaK^CT parties, in tJie opiiuon of |lus Court, it would be justaSa-proper tbat ftie petitioner shaU file representation wifhin 10 days from today before ffae respondent. j If such a_ representation is filed the respondent shaB consider and decide it as early as possible preferably wifhia fhree w?eks from fhe date of representation and tlie decision shaU be commiiaicated to tlie petitioner tlu-ough registei;ed A/d. One copy ofthe de4ision shaU. also be forwarded to Sbri P.K.C. Tiwan counsel for tbe p^itioner.b^^ ft-35.?: to'Uu (WwS^ ^08^(^B, ^ ^' * Witti these observations, tiie petition is disposed of with Ubert}' to ftie parties to avail tb.e proper reinedy. Certified photocop^", tfappliedfor. ——-—...— —__ Sd/- j Fakhruddin ! Judge