JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal, A.C. J. - M/s. Preetee Corrugated paper products has filed this writ petition through its proprietor Ajai Kumar Jain for a mandamus directing the U.P. Financial Corporation to advance the balance sum of Rs. 1,22,000/- to it as agreed to be advanced under the agreement dated 16-11-84 and for a mandamus further that the U.P. Financial Corporation be restrained from realising the interest mentioned in Annexure 13 to the writ petition. 2. The admitted facts are that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the U.P. Financial Corporation for taking a loan of Rs. 4,36,425.58p. Out of this amount Rs. 3,66,300/- had been advanced but before the petitioner gust the entire amount the Corporation issued a notice calling upon it to pay a sum of about Rs. 11,000/- by way of interest for the period up to 30-6-1986 which had accrued to the Corporation. It is stated by the petitioner that the Corporation became entitled to get from the petitioner interest under the agreement if the petitioner defaulted after the payment of the entire amount of advance. The Corporation for realising the aforesaid amount got Ajai Kumar Jain the partner of the petitioner firm arrested and kept in the Civil Prison. Thereafter the petitioner approached this Court by means of the present writ petition. On 19-2-1987 this Court admitted the writ petition and gave the following interim order : "Issue notice Subject to the petitioner depositing sum of Rs. 28,000/- towards interest with the respondents till March 13, 1987 the recovery for the balance through coercive process shall remain suspended till 31st March 1987, unless this order is vacated earlier." A counter-affidavit has been filed by the U.P. Financial Corporation denying that the Corporation was not entitled to realise the interest from the petitioner till the entire loan amount was paid and as such the challenge to the notice by the petitioner was untenable and also that the Corporation was not obliged either under the law or under the agreement to advance to the petitioner the difference in between the amount agreed upon to be paid and the amount which had been advanced. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are not satisfied with the main argument advanced before us that the Corporation could be compelled for applying the principle of equitable estoppel to pay the balance amount. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are not satisfied with the main argument advanced before us that the Corporation could be compelled for applying the principle of equitable estoppel to pay the balance amount. about which a mention has been made by us above and on account of the default on the part of the Corporation not to pay the same, the petitioner is entitled to a mandamus directing the Corporation to make the same available to the petitioner. Reliance has been placed in support of the proposition advanced by the petitioner about applicability of principle of equitable estoppel on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case "The Gujarat State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Lotus Hotels (P.) Ltd., reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court 848. A ruling is an authority for a proposition of law in the contest of the facts which emerge from a particular case. In that case the loanee had undertaken and executed the project of up a 4 Star Hotel at Barod and had spent a huge amount when the Corporation unjustifiably denied to advance money to the loanee. The protest on which the loan was denied was not accepted by the High Court and also by the Supreme Court and it was found to be untenable taking into consideration the facts of that case. The Supreme Court hold that "presumably, if the loan was not forthcoming, the respondent may not have undertaken such a huge project. Acting on the promise of the appellant evidenced by documents, the respondent proceeded to suffer further their liabilities to implement and execute the project." In the instant case no averment has been made that the petitioner had spent any money towards the execution of the project for which the agreement had been entered into between the petitioner and Corporation. What is admitted to both the parties is that the petitioner had been advanced more than Rs. 3,00,000/- by the Corporation. The undisbursed amount was Rs. 1,11,260/ -. As stated earlier this amount was not disbursed to the petitioner by the Corporation on account of the petitioner failing to pay back the instalment of interest which according to the Corporation was due. Counsel for the petitioner took us through the agreement and submitted that since the period of gestation was two years and, therefore, no liability for payment of interest accrued. Counsel for the petitioner took us through the agreement and submitted that since the period of gestation was two years and, therefore, no liability for payment of interest accrued. Consequently the Corporation unjustifiably and illegally with held the payment of the principal amount agreed to be given to the petitioner by way of loan. The submission is not correct. The gestation appears to us to be a period of two years from the date of the first payment out of the principal sum. Reading the agreement we find that interest was repayable by the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 11,500/-. For enabling the petitioner to get the balance amount of loan interest had to be paid to the Corporation. From the facts it appears that this was not done and consequently this argument of the petitioner's counsel does not bear scrutiny. 4. Next submission of the petitioner's counsel is that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity before the notice Annexure XIII had been issued. This was the notice calling upon the petitioner to repay the loan advanced to it. For this purpose. we are not aware of any law under which opportunity was required to be given. The petitioner knew the amount which had been taken by it and it also knew the terms and conditions on which the sum was advanced. There was no occasion for any opportunity being given to the petitioner. 5. After having perused the writ petition we find that on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case since this Court had directed for payment of interest in the sum of Rs. 28,000/- on 19-2-1987 which has been made according to the statement of Sri. H.S. Nigam, we would consider it to be fit case in the ends of justified to give relief to the petitioner by directing the Corporation to give benefit or rebate mentioned at page 22 of the writ petition. The said clause is being reproduced below :- Rate of Interest : Interest on the term loan shall be as described in the followings : Normal Rebate Effective With Refinance 15.5% 3% 12.5% Without Refinance 16.5% 3% 13.5% 6. We, therefore, while rejecting the writ petition give direction to the Corporation to give relief of rebate to the petitioner as mentioned above, as a result whereof the interest payable by the petitioner would be considerably reduced. We, therefore, while rejecting the writ petition give direction to the Corporation to give relief of rebate to the petitioner as mentioned above, as a result whereof the interest payable by the petitioner would be considerably reduced. The petitioner may also approach the Corporation for payment of undisbursed amount of Rs. 1,11,260/- by making a fresh application to it. 7. As a result of what we have said above, the recovery certificate which has been issued by the Tahsildar for realisation of the amount due to the Corporation would need modification and correction and after doing the same fresh recovery certificate may be issued, if thought appropriate. 8. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of.