Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BABU SINGH NIRALA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Babu Singh Nirala v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 68301 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 21076 (14 December 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. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

The petitioner was allotted a plot by the U.P. Avas & Vikas Parishad (hereinafter referred to as the ''Parishad') on Hire-Purchase basis and an agreement dated 1st January, 1996 was executed between the parties according to which the petitioner was required to deposit an amount of Rs. 1679/- per month. The agreement also provided that in the event the petitioner failed to deposit any monthly installment, the Parishad would charge interest at the rate of 18% but if the petitioner failed to deposit three or more installments, the allotment would stand cancelled.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the issuance of the notice dated 12th September, 2006 by which the Parishad has required the petitioner to deposit the installment amount of Rs. 1,73,494.30 together with interest of Rs.78,970.15. In the entire petition, the petitioner has not stated that he had deposited the amount in time and the notice had been issued in violation of the agreement entered into between the parties. In fact, a perusal of the Writ Petition indicates that the petitioner had defaulted in paying the monthly installments. Such being the position, we are of the opinion that the notice issued by the Parishad does not suffer from any infirmity.

Learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that this Court should take a sympathetic view of the matter and pass an appropriate order. We express our inability to accept such a submission for a simple reason that the Court cannot modify or alter the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner in the end submitted that a copy of the statement may be furnished. The respondents may furnish the statement of account to the petitioner and if any amount has not been adjusted, it may be adjusted in accordance with law.

There is, therefore, no merit in this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

Date: 14.12.2006

GS-68301-06


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.