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


Maharaji Educational Trust & Others v. Punjab & Sind Bank & Others - WRIT - C No. 26347 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 10363 (4 June 2007)


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).




The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order passed in Case No.572 of 2005 DRT, Allahabad dated 11.5.2007.  Further prayer has been made to the effect that the petitioners are not liable to pay the amount as decreed by DRT, Allahabad vide its judgment dated 25.8.2005 in T.A. No.333 of 2003.

The petitioners who are running the educational institution have taken certain loans from the respondents. That was not being paid, therefore, the respondents filed a suit and that was subsequently transferred to DRT Lucknow and vide its judgment and order dated 25.8.2005 allowed the application for issuance of recovery certificate to the tune of Rs.26,75,98,861.00 only together with pendentehte future interest at the rate of 16% per annum. Further it has been ordered that despite passing of the final order for issuance of recovery certificate as above, it will be open to the parties for arriving at a settlement of their dispute for outstanding due of the Bank.  Further it has been ordered that in case any proposal of compromise is already pending and not decided or any fresh proposal of compromise is placed before the Bank by the petitioner it will be desirable for the Bank to  consider the same with an open mind without any discrimination of whatsoever, under proper prospective and analysis and the same will be required to be disposed of in accordance with the guidelines framed by the competent authority and after due intimation to the petitioners.  Further it has been observed that petitioners have to show their eagerness  to repay the claim of the bank by offering a reasonable proposal which will be acceptable to the Bank and their such initiative should not be a practice of buying time in the name of settlement and stalling process of recovery of public money lent to them by the bank in any manner whatsoever.  The petitioners submit that the petitioners have submitted an application for the said purposes. In the meantime, the appeal filed by the petitioners before the DRT was dismissed by its order dated 11.5.2007. It has further been submitted by the petitioners that Rs. 1 crore has been deposited by the petitioners on 31.8.2005 and earlier the petitioners have deposited Rs.5 crores.  Further submission has been made by the petitioners that they are ready and willing to pay the amount but the respondents may consider the case of the petitioners for settlement or compromise in the light of the observation and direction made in the judgment dated 25.8.2005.

Sri V.B.Upadhyaya, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Pramod Jain, Advocate submitted that the petitioners have admitted their liability to the tune of Rs.31 crores in the offer made made by the petitioners itself.  In case  the petitioners wants any settlement like one time settlement, the petitioners have to show their bonafide because according to the respondents the due against the petitioners at the present  is about Rs.55 crores.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.  

Without entering into the merits of the present case, it is provided that in case, the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs.10 crores before the respondent No.1 within a period of three months from today and after depositing the amount mentioned above, makes an application for one time settlement, the same will be considered by the respondents bank according to the Reserve Bank of India guidelines and will pass a detailed and reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of filing of the application.  It is further provided that the deposit of Rs.10 crores by the petitioners will be either in the form of Bank Draft or Bankers Cheque.

In case the petitioners comply the first condition of the order, then the recovery against the petitioners shall remain suspended till the finalization of the application of one time settlement filed by the petitioners.  In case of default the writ petition be treated to be dismissed and it will be open to the respondent bank to recover the amount from the petitioners in view of the order passed by the DRT.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.  

No order as to costs.  



W.P.No.26347 of 2007


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.