Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ROOM SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECY. FINANCE & REVENUE & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Room Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Finance & Revenue & Others - WRIT - C No. 44236 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 2028 (25 January 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon. S. K. Singh, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

Prayer in this petition is for quashing recovery certificate and for a direction to the respondent bank to accept the payable amount in easy instalment. When the writ petition was entertained this court directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.25,000/- by 31.7.2005 upon which recovery of remaining amount was stayed.  Petitioner deposited an amount of Rs.14,000/= only but now it is submitted that remaining amount has already been arranged. It is further submitted that petitioner was to deposit the entire amount by 2006 according to the bank schedule. Statement of account as submitted by the bank with the counter affidavit upto June,2005 an amount of Rs.58,116/= was payable by the petitioner and now thereafter chargeable interest is to be added.  

In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner will deposit the amount if he is permitted to deposit the same by 2006 as earlier agreed by the bank.

To the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for Bank/Samiti submits that although in some of the cases it has been said that against the recovery proceedings unless some illegality is pointed out the court may not interfere but at the same time submission is that intention of the respondent bank has been never to cause any irreparable injury to the loanee rather the loan amount was advanced with the purpose to improve the petitioner's future prospects and thus if for justifiable reason the amount in terms of the agreement has not been paid and now petitioner has bonafide intention to pay the amount within a reasonable time then if that liberty is given, it will serve the interest of both sides i.e. petitioner may be saved from the riggers of coercive process i.e. arrest, auction of the properties and at the same time respondent bank will get its full amount with interest. Thus for grant of reasonable time, if that is to advance justice, respondents may not have any objection.

Be as it may, keeping in mind the fact the petitioner is agriculturist and recovery by coercive process may cause irreparable injury to him, this court proposes to accept submission of the petitioner. Accordingly this petition is being disposed of by giving following directions-

1. Petitioner is directed to move an application before the respondent bank within a period of ten days from today for getting exact payable amount upto the period of 31st January, 2006.

2. On getting application along with certified copy of this order respondent bank will give him statement of amount, as directed above, within a further period of ten days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

3. After getting that statement petitioner will deposit entire amount in three instalments. The first instalment will be paid by 30th April, 2006, the second by 31st July, 2006 and third by 31st October, 2006.

4. If the things happen in the manner so provided, amount pursuant to the citation, impugned before this court will not be recovered by taking any coercive process.

5. In the event of default in compliance of any of the terms of this order interim protection so given by this court shall cease and it will be open for the respondents to recover entire amount at once by taking any coercive process to which petitioner undertakes not to object.

6. If the petitioner deposits entire amount so payable towards the dues of the respondent bank as indicated above then no recovery charges will be taken either by the respondent bank or by Tahsil authorities.

With the aforesaid direction this writ petition stands disposed of.

25.1.2006

M.A.A.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.