High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Dayal v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 6429 of 2006  RD-AH 2528 (1 February 2006)
Hon'ble S.K. Singh, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel who appears for the Bank/Samiti and learned Standing Counsel. Challenge in this petition is recovery proceeding.
The counsel for the petitioner has made statement at the bar that this is the first writ petition against the recovery proceeding and this fact has also been stated in the writ petition. Admittedly petitioner took loan to the tune of Rs. 1,60,000/- in the year 1999 out of which he has paid substantial amount. The loan is to be paid by the year 2008. According to the petitioner he could not pay the instalment amount due to unavoidable circumstances as stated in the writ petition on account of which entire payable amount up to the period of last instalment, which is huge one to the extent of about Rs. 1,61,088/- etc. is sought to be recovered by petitioner's arrest and auction of agricultural land which is the only source of livelihood of the petitioner and his family members. Petitioner has deposited substantial amount. Submission is that if reasonable time is allowed to pay the amount sought to be recovered, petitioner may be able to pay the same and irreparable injury on account of arrest and auction of property may be avoided.
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.
In view of aforesaid, this Court feels in the ends of justice that amount sought to be recovered be permitted to be deposited in the following manner, which will protect loanee from depriving of immovable/movable properties causing irreparable loss to the family which is to occasion on account of coercive process and at the same time, concerned Bank/Samiti will also get its amount.
At this stage without challenging correctness of amount sought to be recovered a prayer has been made that if amount sought to be recovered is permitted to be deposited in easy instalments, deposit of entire amount can be made.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the following directions :
i) Petitioner may deposit the entire amount sought to be recovered directly in concerned Bank/Samiti in six equal instalments In calculating the arrears the amount (if any) already paid will be adjusted.
ii) The first instalment may be deposited by 31st March, 2006, second instalment by 30th June, 2006, third by 30th September, 2006, fourth by 31st December, 2006, fifth by 31st March, 2007 and sixth by 30th June, 2007. These deposits may be made before the branch of the Bank/Samiti from where the loan was taken. In case instalments are deposited in the Bank/Samiti then the recovery charges will not be recovered from the petitioner.
iii) During period of deposit the recovery proceedings will be kept in abeyance. In case petitioner defaults in depositing any of the instalments within the above stipulated time, it will be open to the respondents to start recovery proceedings again by taking coercive process at once to which the petitioner undertakes not to challenge.
iv) Petitioner may file an application for supply of statement of account along with duly stamped self addressed envelope. In case any such application is filed, the concerned branch of the Bank/Samiti will give the same to the petitioner after deposit of first instalment within fifteen days.
v) This order will not affect any auction if it has already taken place. In that event the petitioner may take appropriate legal proceedings to set aside the auction under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and Rules, 1952 or file a suit in accordance with law.
vi) It is clarified that this order will not be operative and will not come in way of recovery process in any manner, if any other writ petition has been filed before this Court against the recovery proceeding for the loan amount.
vii) Property (agricultural land/tractor) belonging to the petitioner, if attached will be released by the concerned Tahsil authority (unless it has been auctioned) after deposit of first instalment.
viii) If any fact given from the side of the petitioner is found to be incorrect by the bank authorities, it will be open for them to move an application for modification/recall of the order.
With the aforesaid writ petition stands disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.