JUDGMENT :

This is a classic case of impudence of a litigant approaching this Court in its equitable writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with blatant falsehood by deliberately making false statement on oath and at the same time challenging the correctness of an order passed by the Chairman, Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, on the ground of same having been obtained by fraud by the officials of the UCO Bank. From the pleadings and admitted facts on record, the Court has noticed a remarkable audacity in the petitioners attempting to establish a claim based on patent falsehood.

2. Though on the basis of certain admitted facts, this writ application could have been dismissed on merits, I have deemed it proper to take note of certain pleadings brought on record on behalf of the petitioners, to address the issue of falsehood and overall conduct of the petitioners in approaching this Court.

3. The petitioner No. 1 is a Company incorporated and registered under the Indian Companies Act. Petitioner No. 2, it is stated has been authorized by the resolution passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company to prosecute this matter of behalf