JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, Judge: Respondent No. 1-Corporation, has filed an application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to the Banks and the Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act” for the sake of brevity) for recovery of a sum of Rs.15,58,160.16 paise alongwith pendente lite interest and cost of litigation before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh, bearing O.A. No. 461 of 2001. The petitioners filed written statement to the same. The replication was also filed by the respondent No. 1Corporation. Learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh dismissed the application with costs on 16.06.2004. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, dated 16.06.2004, the respondent No. 1 approached the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi by way of Appeal No. 410 of 2004. Learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi allowed the appeal on 15.11.2010. The petitioners have challenged the appellate order, dated 15.11.2010, by medium of this writ petition. 3. Essential facts necessary for adjudication of this writ petition are that respondent No. 2, M/s. Royal Button Mushrooms, was a partnership firm consisting of four partners, namely, S/sh. Jai Shiv Singh Chandel, Lokender Mohan Singh Chandel, Narain Singh Chandel and Pardeep Prakash Chandel. A term loan of Rs.15.17 lacs was sanctioned by respondent No.1-Corporation in favour of proforma respondent No. 2. The same was disbursed by the Corporation to the promoters on 19.03.1984 and 12.12.1986. In order to secure the loan, a loan agreement was entered into on 10.05.1985. The hypothecation deed was also prepared on 31.01.1987. The partners have entered into a lease with one Shri Mansha Ram on 21.05.1985. It was valid for ten years. Since partnership firm/promoters were finding it difficult to run the industry, the Unit was given to the petitioners on 09.07.1990 on annual lease money of Rs.2.00 lacs. An agreement was also entered into between the erstwhile partners and the petitioners on 07.07.1990. One of the petitioners, Sh. Satinder Singh Mann made an offer for change in the Management of M/s. Royal Button Mushroom to the Secretary of respondent No. 1, H.P. Financial Corporation on 13.03.1991. A reminder was also sent to the Managing Director of respondent No. 1-Corporation by Shri Satinder Singh Mann on 19.03.1991. The erstwhile partners also submitted an application to the Managing Director of respondent No. 1-Corporation on 15.04.1991 for change of the Management to Sh. Satender Mann and Sh. Mukesh Mann. A reminder was also sent to the Managing Director of respondent No. 1-Corporation by Shri Satinder Singh Mann on 19.03.1991. The erstwhile partners also submitted an application to the Managing Director of respondent No. 1-Corporation on 15.04.1991 for change of the Management to Sh. Satender Mann and Sh. Mukesh Mann. In sequel to letter, dated 19.03.1991, the Secretary of the respondent No. 1Corporation has called upon Sh. Satinder Mann to discuss the matter with the Corporation within a week. Shri Satinder Mann and Shri Mukesh Mann also made another representation to the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation on 15.05.1991. The Secretary of the respondent No. 1-Corporation has decided to approve in principle to take over of the Unit alongwith its liabilities by the new party on 15.06.1991 subject to the following conditions: “i) that the new management shall keep paying the installments in accordance with the earlier proposal in view of their having already taken over the unit on lease and its running by them. (ii) the proposal of rehabilitation and change of management/take over of unit shall be examined by the Corporation on merit on its receipt and the decision taken by the Corporation in this regard shall be binding on the new party. However, the Corporation’s approval in principle should not be construed as final approval for change of management/take over of the unit by the party or an approval for giving concession/reliefs as per R.B.I. IDBI guide lines. (iii) that the rehabilitation/change of management proposal should be furnished by new party within a period of one month positively for early decision on the same.” 4. A new deed of partnership was also made on 10.06.1992 between Sh. Satender Mann, Shri Mukesh Mann and Smt. Chander Kala Mann. A cancellation deed was also prepared on 18.05.1992. The respondent No. 1-Corporation has decided to consider the loan application submitted by M/s. Royal Button Mushroom on 25.02.1992, subject to the conditions imposed therein. In sequel to letter, dated 25.02.1992, one of the partners, i.e., Shri Satinder Mann furnished the documents on 09.03.1992. 5. It would also be apt at this stage to note that agreement to sell was prepared between the new partners and Shri Mansha Ram on 25.05.1992. A tripartite agreement was signed by the petitioners and erstwhile partners on 02.07.1992. In sequel to letter, dated 25.02.1992, one of the partners, i.e., Shri Satinder Mann furnished the documents on 09.03.1992. 5. It would also be apt at this stage to note that agreement to sell was prepared between the new partners and Shri Mansha Ram on 25.05.1992. A tripartite agreement was signed by the petitioners and erstwhile partners on 02.07.1992. The loan agreement and agreement of hypothecation were also prepared on 02.07.1992 between the petitioners and respondent No. 1-Corporation. The re-call notices were sent by respondent No. 1-Corporation to the petitioners on 09.03.1993, 18.07.1993 and 01.05.1994. However, the fact of the matter is that the Unit was taken over on 19.09.1994 by the respondent No. 1. The sale notice was issued on 04.10.1994. The petitioners were also informed on 05.11.1996 to get the better buyers. Shri Mansha Ram, father of erstwhile partners purchased the Unit on 29.11.1996 for a consideration of Rs.16,72,500/-. A Civil Suit was also filed by the respondent No. 1-Corporation against Shri Mansha Ram to extend the period of lease deed bearing Civil Suit No. 266/1 of 1995. It was compromised on 29.03.1997. Shri Mansha Ram Chandel has also instituted a Civil Suit against H.P. Financial Corporation on 11.10.1995 bearing Civil Suit No. 286-1 of 1995. It was also compromised on 04.03.1997. It is in these circumstances, the respondent No. 1-Corporation has filed an application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts due to the Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. 6. The Corporation has led evidence on the basis of the affidavits filed by Shri B.S. Thakur, Manager (Legal), Shri B.S. Negi, Deputy Manager, Shri B.M. Mehta, Assistant Manager, Shri M.S. Chatrant, Senior Assistant and Shri B.S. Jamalta, Senior Assistant (Legal). 7. The case of the petitioners before the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh was that no amount was due and payable to the Corporation. Learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh has given a finding that the Unit could not be permitted to be purchased by the father of erstwhile partners, Shri Mansha Ram Chandel and also by revoking personal guarantees of the outgoing partners, i.e., S/Shri Jai Shiv Singh Chandel, Lokender Mohan Singh Chandel, Narain Singh Chandel and Pradeep Parkash Chandel. According to the petitioners, this arrangement has been made behind the back of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, this arrangement has been made behind the back of the petitioners. They have also pleaded that they were not arrayed as parties in both the Civil Suits, i.e., Civil Suit No. 266/1 of 1995 and Civil Suit No. 286-1 of 1995. According to the learned Debts recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh, the old partners were not replaced by the new partners and there was no mention of the fresh partnership deed. 8. Learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi by taking into consideration all the pleadings and the documents placed on record has rightly reversed the judgment of the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh. 9. Initially, as noticed hereinabove, the Unit was promoted by the erstwhile partners, who were sanctioned loan of Rs.15.79 lacs and the same stood disbursed on 19.03.1984 and 12.12.1986. The Unit was given on lease on 09.07.1990 on annual lease money of Rs.2.00 lacs. The erstwhile outgoing partners also submitted an application to the Managing Director of respondent No. 1-Corporation on 15.04.1991 for change of the Management to Sh. Satender Mann and Sh. Mukesh Mann. In sequel to letter, dated 19.03.1991, the Secretary of the respondent No. 1Corporation has called upon Sh. Satinder Mann to discuss the matter with the Corporation within a week. Shri Satinder Mann and Shri Mukesh Mann also made another representation to the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation on 15.05.1991. The Corporation has accorded the permission in principle for the change of Management on 15.06.1991. Thereafter, the necessary documents were supplied. A new deed of partnership was also made on 10.06.1992 between Sh. Satender Mann, Shri Mukesh Mann and Smt. Chander Kala Mann. A cancellation deed was also prepared on 18.05.1992. The Corporation has also agreed to advance loan subject to the conditions imposed vide letter, dated 25.02.1992. A sum of Rs.80 lacs was subsequently sanctioned, but the petitioners have availed only Rs.40 lacs. A tripartite agreement was also entered into between the petitioners, erstwhile partners and the respondent No. 1-Corporation on 02.07.1992. The relevant portion of the same reads as under: “AND WHEREAS after the request of the first and second parties, the H.P.F.C. has agreed to allow the second party to transfer the aforesaid unit styled as M/s Royal Nutton Mushroom situated at Village Dairy, P.O. Taradevi, Shimla, H.P. in favour of the first party. The relevant portion of the same reads as under: “AND WHEREAS after the request of the first and second parties, the H.P.F.C. has agreed to allow the second party to transfer the aforesaid unit styled as M/s Royal Nutton Mushroom situated at Village Dairy, P.O. Taradevi, Shimla, H.P. in favour of the first party. ON the first party having agreed to take over all the assets and liabilities of the said industrial concern and being bound by all the loan documents which were initially executed by the second party (i.e. cut going partners) of M/S Royal Button Mushroom, subsequently other documents executed by the second party in favour of H.P.F.C. for subsidy availed and agreeing to pay all the outstanding dues of the corporation. AND WHEREAS the first party has also agreed to execute such documents as may be required to be executed by it with H.P.F.C. for securing the repayment of loan alongwith interest and assuring the payment thereof to the corporation. AND WHEREAS the first party has admitted and acknowledged the liability of the said Unit which it has taken over from the second party with all assets and liabilities on 9.3.92 at Rs. 28,12084.26 including of interest towards the term loan i.e. Royal Button Mushroom to H.P.F.C. and has agreed to pay all the outstanding dues with interest @ 4 ½ % above the SIDBI’s lending rates of interest subject to the minimum of 14.5% per annum with six monthly rests and subject to a rebate of 1% for payment of Principal and interest on due date as stipulated with loan documents. In case the first party pays the installment of interest only on due date the rebate would be restricted to ½ % only.” …(d) The first and second party hereby undertake to get the lease of land measuring 2 bighas and 8 biswas, comprising in Khasra No. 411/29/1, Village Dairy Taradevi, Shimla, H.P. in favour of the first party within as period of 6 months. (e) That the first party shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the documents executed by the second party in favour of the Corporation. (e) That the first party shall remain bound by the terms and conditions of the documents executed by the second party in favour of the Corporation. The first party also gives the undertaking that in the event of the first party fails to repay the loan and interest due thereon as per agreed terms, the H.P.F.C. shall be entitled and competent to take over the industrial unit of the first party under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 for all intents and purposes the first party shall be deemed as a principal loanee for the amount mentioned above which acknowledged to be due by the first party and agreed to be paid by the first party.” 10. Thus, it is established that the petitioners have stepped into the shoes of erstwhile outgoing partners and have undertaken to acknowledge all the liabilities of the Unit. The petitioners have entered into tripartite agreement, loan agreement and agreement of hypothecation on 02.07.1992 voluntarily. It is not the case of the petitioners that the agreement was the result of coercion and undue influence etc. The petitioners themselves have been impressing upon respondent No. 1-Corporation to change the Management. The Corporation has agreed to the same and in view of this, a tripartite agreement was entered into between three parties on 02.07.1992. The re-call notices have been issued on 09.03.1993, 18.07.1993 and 01.05.1994 and the Unit was taken over on 19.09.1994. The petitioners were also called upon to come out with a better buyer as per letter, dated 05.11.1996. No person has given the bid except Sh. Mansha Ram, father of the erstwhile partners. However, he has agreed to buy the property only if the guarantee of the previous partners was revoked. The Corporation has agreed to do so and Shri Mansha Ram, father of erstwhile partners has purchased the Unit on 29.11.1996 for a consideration of Rs.16,72,500/-. The Civil Suits filed between the parties, i.e., Shri Mansha Ram and H.P. Financial Corporation were compromised on 29.03.1997 and 04.03.1997. The petitioners were not the necessary parties in these proceedings. The petitioners have also entered into an agreement with Shri Mansha Ram on 25.05.1992. They were required to take permission under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. They have not taken any steps for taking permission. The petitioners were not the necessary parties in these proceedings. The petitioners have also entered into an agreement with Shri Mansha Ram on 25.05.1992. They were required to take permission under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. They have not taken any steps for taking permission. The lease entered into between the erstwhile partners and Shri Mansha Ram was for a limited period. It was required to be extended. The petitioners cannot take the plea that the grantees of the previous partners could not be revoked. Even, this action has never been challenged by the petitioners before any competent court of law. The petitioners have also been given opportunity to get better buyers as per letter, dated 05.11.1996. Learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh has come to a wrong conclusion that the erstwhile partners were not replaced. It is duly established from the facts enumerated hereinabove that after the earlier partnership deed was cancelled and a new partnership deed has come into force. These documents were furnished by the petitioners themselves to the Financial Corporation. Besides this, they have also entered into a loan agreement with the Corporation on 02.07.1992 and the deed of hypothecation was also signed between the petitioners and Corporation on 02.07.1992. There is neither any illegality nor any procedural irregularity in the judgment, dated 15.11.2010. 11. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, there no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.