Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Anoj Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Another - WRIT - C No. 2154 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 960 (16 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).



Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2154 of 2006

Anoj Kumar


State of U.P. & Anr.

Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned notice dated 09.09.2005 issued by respondent no.2 and for a direction to the respondent no.2 to accept the balance amount in easy installments.

Shri R.N. Kesari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition pointing out that in respect of the same loan, the petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 59011 of 2005, Gopal Krishna Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., which was disposed by judgment and order dated 05.09.2005. It has further been submitted by Shri Kesari that the terms and conditions incorporated by this Court in the said judgment had not been complied with by the petitioner and a fresh writ petition has been filed without disclosing the fact of filing the earlier writ petition and the order of this Court.

Shri Deepak Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently opposed the submissions made by Shri R.N. Kesari submitting that that was a separate loan taken by the petitioner from the said respondent and this writ petition deals with a separate account and, therefore, it is a different cause of action and not the earlier one and the petitioner is entitled for the same relief which has been granted to him earlier vide judgment and order dated 05.09.2005. However, it has been submitted by Mr. Srivastava that in case the petitioner has not complied with or ensured the terms and conditions incorporated in the judgment and order dated 05.09.2005, it is open to the respondents to make the recovery in accordance with law.

In order to resolve the controversy, we would clarify that in case the petitioner had earlier filed any writ petition in respect of this very loan, which is under challenge in this petition, this order shall not be operative and in case it relates to the different loan, the writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the said judgement and order dated 05.09.2005. However, we modify the clause 2 of the said judgment to the extent that the petitioner shall be permitted to deposit the first installments by 15.02.2006.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.



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


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 |

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