S. K. Mahajan, J. ( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of the application of the plaintiff for the grant of an interim injunction as also the application of defendant No. 2 under Order 39, Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code for vacating the ex parte order of injunction granted on April 22, 1996. The brief facts which have resulted in the filing of the present suit, are that: Defendant No. 1 had taken lease finance from the plaintiff for acquisition of certain plants and machineries for use/installation at the factory known as Khalilabad Sugar Mills. The total amount granted by way of lease finance by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 was Rs. 150 lacs. The amount was repayable in the manner mentioned in the agreements entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. In the event of default in the payment of rentals, the plaintiff was entitled to remove and repossess the equipments installed at Khalilabad Sugar Mills which would have been without prejudice to other rights of the plaintiff. With the amount granted by the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 is stated to have acquired assets of the value of Rs. 128. 65 lacs which had been capitalised in their books of accounts. There was a default in the payment of the amount in terms of the agreement by defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 2 had also made an application for loan to the Central Government for modernisation and expansion and was granted loan under the Sugar Development Fund Act of the total amount of Rs. 124 lacs. It was at the stage of disbursement of the said loan that the plaintiff filed present suit contending that this amount of Rs. 124 lacs had been sanctioned in favour of defendant No. 2 only for payment of money to the plaintiff so as to transfer the ownership of the machines to defendant No. 2 and according to the plaintiff, as defendants 1 to 3 intended to utilise the said loan for purpose other than payment to the plaintiff, a decree was claimed in the suit restraining defendant No. 4 from releasing the amount of Rs. 124 lacs or any other amount. 124 lacs or any other amount. ( 2 ) ALONGWITH the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed and it was on the allegations mentioned above that this Court by an order dated 22nd April, 1996 passed an ex parte order of injunction restraining defendant No. 4 from releasing the amount of Rs. 124 lacs to any of the defendants 1, 2 and 3. ( 3 ) DEFENDANT No. 2 instead of filing the written statement, filed an application under Order 39, Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside/varying the ex-paret order dated April 22, 1996 on the allegations that defendant No. 2 was an independent entity having nothing to do with the agreement which had been entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and that the loan granted by the financial institutions was from out of the Sugar Development Fund created under the Sugar Development Fund Act, 1982 and the said loan could not be utilised for any purpose other than what had been mentioned in the terms and conditions under which it was granted by the Central Government. It was stated that pursuant to the request of defendant No. 2, the Central Government had granted an additional loan of Rs. 124 lacs to defendant No. 2 on the following terms and conditions : " (I) The purpose of the loan is for modernisation/rehabilitation/restructuring of sugar mill. (ii) The defendant No. 2 to execute an agreement under Sub-rule 9 (i) of Rule 16 of the Sugar Development Fund Rules, 1983 before disbursement of the loan by defendant No. 4. (iii) The defendant No. 2 shall create second charge on its fixed and moveable assets in favour of Central Govt. (iv) The defendant No. 2 will have to repay fully all the sums due against loans out of the Sugar Development Fund and the levy sugar price equalisation fund. (v) The defendant No. 2 should maintain the account separately and all payment therefrom, should be met only through cheques to ensure proper utilization of funds. (vi) The recovery of SDF loans will take priority over the liabilities created if any on any unsecured loans. (v) The defendant No. 2 should maintain the account separately and all payment therefrom, should be met only through cheques to ensure proper utilization of funds. (vi) The recovery of SDF loans will take priority over the liabilities created if any on any unsecured loans. " ( 4 ) THE contention of defendant No. 2, therefore, is that the said defendant is not liable for payment of any amount to the plaintiff and in any case the amount sanctioned by the Central Government, which was to be disbursed by defendant No. 4, could not be utilised for purposes of payment of any amount allegedly due to the plaintiff. ( 5 ) WITH a view to provide assistance for purpose of rehabilitation and modernisation of sugar factories for development of sugarcane in the areas in which sugar factories are situate and for encouraging research aimed at development of sugar industry, the Parliament has enacted the Sugar Development Fund Act. Under Section 3 of the said Act, a fund known as the "sugar development fund" has been formed and this fund has to be applied by the Central Government in the manner mentioned in Section 4 of the Act. Under Sub-section 2 of Section 4, the manner in which any loan or grants may be made under the Act and the terms and conditions subject to which such loan or grants may be made shall be such as may be prescribed. It was under this Act that the loan of Rs. 124 lacs was granted to defendant No. 2 from out of the "sugar Development Fund". Rules have been framed under the Sugar Development Fund Act and the said rules are known as Sugar Development Fund Rules, 1983 (in short referred to as "rules" ). Under Rule 5, all expenditure incurred for purposes of the Act and the Rules shall be from the consolidated fund of India. A Standing Committee has been constituted under the Rules and it is this Committee which is to consider the applications received for the purpose covered under Rules 16, 17 and 18 for payment of loan assistance and grants and such other matters as may be referred to it by the Central Government. Under Rule 16, when an application is made for assistance, the Committee shall consider the application and forward its decision to the Central Government in the form of a recommendation. Under Rule 16, when an application is made for assistance, the Committee shall consider the application and forward its decision to the Central Government in the form of a recommendation. After consideration of the recommendation, the Central Government authorises payment to the Sugar Undertaking of such amount by way of financial assistance to be contributed by such Sugar Undertaking as promotor s contributions as may be determined by it. The amount of loan authorised under the Rules has to be disbursed by the Central Government only to the Sugar Undertaking. This amount can be disbursed either directly by the Central Government or paid by it to the financial institutions for disbursement to the Sugar Undertaking. In the present case, the Central Government had authorised defendant No. 4 for disbursement to the Sugar Undertaking, namely, defendant No. 2 and the purpose is as mentioned in Rule 16 (vi) and also as is mentioned in the letter dated 23rd February, 1996 written by the Government of India. The terms and conditions on which the loan has been sanctioned have been given in the letter dated 11th March, 1996 written to defendant No. 2 by Director (SDF) in the Ministry of Food, Government of India. The purpose mentioned in the letter s the modernisation/ rehabilitation of the plant and machinery. A statutory agreement has also been arrived at on 11th March, 1996 between defendant No. 2 and the Industrial Finance Corporation of India. In terms of the agreement this amount of grant was by way of promoter s contributions required to be raised by the Sugar Undertaking for availing of the loan under its various schemes for modernisation and rehabilitation. ( 6 ) A perusal of all these documents shows that this loan which was to be disbursed by defendant No. 4 could not be paid to the plaintiff for payment of the cost of equipments given on lease to defendant No. 1. Moreover, defendant No. 1 is a separate entity and any amount which may have to be paid by defendant No. I cannot be recovered from defendant No. 2 unlessdefendant No. 2 had agreed in writing for repayment of the same. Moreover, defendant No. 1 is a separate entity and any amount which may have to be paid by defendant No. I cannot be recovered from defendant No. 2 unlessdefendant No. 2 had agreed in writing for repayment of the same. Even if there was such an agreement for repayment by defendant No. 2, this amount of disbursement by IFCI could not have been paid to the plaintiff as the same would have been clearly in violation of the Sugar Development Fund Act. The plaintiff has itself placed on record a letter dated 12th April, 1996 written by IRBI to defendant No. 5 which clearly states that as per the guidelines the SDF loan of Rs. 124 lacs sanctioned to defendant No. 2 could be disbursed to the company only and not to any other agency. Again in letter dated 16th April, 1996, IFCI has clearly written to the plaintiff that the loan has to be disbursed only to defendant No. 2 and nobody else. ( 7 ) IN view of the position enumerated above, there cannot be any other conclusion except to hold that the loan sanctioned in favour of defendant. No. 2 cannot be paid to any other person except the said defendant and the plaintiff cannot have any right to seek an order of restraint against any of the defendants from disbursing the loan to defendant No. 2. ( 8 ) MR. Sanghi, appearing for the plaintiff, states that the plant and machinery value of which has been claimed by the plaintiff are installed in the factory of defendant No. 2. Mr. B. Mohan has no objection to the removal of the said plant and machinery as according to him they have no concern with the same. The agreement under which defendant No. 1 had installed the plant and machinery in the factory of defendant No. 2 has already been terminated by defendant No. 2 as it was also one of the conditions for disbursement of loan. Defendant No. 1 for reasons not known, has not removed the plant and machinery from the factory of defendant No. inspite of the said agreement having been terminated. Defendant No. 1 for reasons not known, has not removed the plant and machinery from the factory of defendant No. inspite of the said agreement having been terminated. In view of the fact that defendant No. 2 has no objection to the removal of plant and machinery from its factory and defendant No. 1 has not filed any reply, I feel that for protection of their rights, the plaintiff is entitled to remove the said plants and machinery which had been installed in the factory of defendant No. 2 payment of which is being claimed by the plaintiff. ( 9 ) IN view of the above, I feel that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief of injunction against any of the defendants regarding disbursement of the amount of Rs. 124 lacs by defendant No. 4 to defendant No. 2 and the application for injunction is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order passed on April 22, 1996 stands vacated. ( 10 ) I, however, feel that as the plaintiff is entitled to remove all the plant and machinery installed in the factory of defendant No. 2 to which plant and machinery the said defendant has no right. I, therefore, restrain defendants 1 and 2 from in any manner obstructing the plaintiff from removing the plantand machinery which had been leased by the plaintiff to defendant No. 1 under the lease agreements dated 7th August, 1990 and 10th January, 1991. To avoid any controversy and with a view to identify the plant and machinery covered by the aforesaid agreements, I feel that such removal should be in the presence of a Local Commissioner. I, therefore, appoint Mr. S. S. Gandhi, Advocate, 441, Lawyers Chambers, High Court of Delhi, New Delhi, as Local Commissioner in whose presence the plaintiff can remove the plant and machinery for which agreements had been entered into between defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff. He shall in the first instance be paid a fee of Rs. 10,000. 00 plus actual expenses incurred for executing the commission. WITH these observations, both the applications are disposed of.