( 1 ) AS indicated in paragraph 1 of the writ petition itself, it is clear that the writ petition has been filed to challenge, inter alia, the legality and validity of the recovery proceedings initiated by the respondent No. 1 in pursuance of the recovery certificate issued by Pradeshiya Industrial and investment Corporation of Uttar Pradesh i. e. respondent No. 2 herein. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction for quashing the recovery proceedings and the notice of recovery dated 14-2-2003 issued by the respondent No. 1.

( 2 ) A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents and in particular Respondent No. 2 that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this petition. It is therefore necessary to first examine the question of territorial jurisdiction before proceeding with the hearing on the merits of the case.

( 3 ) THERE are two aspects to the present writ petition. The first is the challenge to the proceedings initiated by the respondent no. 2 under the provisions of the U. P. Public monies (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972. The second is the challenge to the notice of recovery dated 14-2-2003 issued by the respondent No. 1. The latter notice has been issued by the respondent No. 1 who is an authority in Delhi. The petitioner claims that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition in view of the fact that the said recovery notice dated 14-2-2003 has been issued in Delhi to the petitioner who also resides in Delhi. The property in connection with which the said recovery notice has been issued is also situate in Delhi. Thus, it is the petitioners contention, that part of the cause of action has arisen in delhi. Thus, it is the petitioner s contention, that part of the cause of action has been in delhi and that is sufficient to clothe this court with territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition.

( 4 ) TO appreciate the arguments and counter arguments on this question of territorial jurisdiction it would be necessary to briefly narrate the background facts. The petitioner was one of the directors in Elite appliances Ltd. which was engaged in the manufacture of kitchenware under the brand name of "litware". The said company approached the respondent No. 2 for grant of financial assistance for its project to be located at B-202, NOIDA phase II, district ghaziabad, U. P. On 11-1-1994, the said company executed a loan agreement with the Respondent No. 2. The loan agreement was made at Lucknow. The respondent no. 2 also gave a working capital term loan of Rs. 75,00,000/- to the said company and an agreement in respect thereof was also executed on 8-7-1997. Clause 16 of the said loan agreement specifically provided that all the promoters viz. Shri P. C. Gupta, Shailesh gupta, Sudesh Chand Gupta, Mahesh chand Gupta, Smt. Sushma Gupta and shrimati Indu Gupta shall give irrevocable guarantee for repayment of principal and interest in their personal capacity and they will not be paid any commission for such guarantee. It is to be noted that Mahesh chand Gupta is the petitioner in the present writ petition. Pursuant to the said agreement and particularly the working capital term loan agreement dated 8-7-1997 between the respondent No. 2 and the said company, the petitioner, along with the other directors, executed a bond of personal guarantee on 8-7-1997 itself. This bond of personal guarantee was executed at NOIDA, U. P. Clause 3 of this bond of guarantee provided that the guarantor shall, upon demand, forthwith pay to the respondent No. 2 without demur all the amounts payable by the said company under the loan agreement on the footing and as if the loan were directly made to the guarantor and on the said terms and conditions.

( 5 ) IT is pertinent to note the working capital term loan agreement as well as the bond of personal guarantee included clauses in respect of jurisdiction. Clause 17 of the working c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document