Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UMA SHANKAR versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Uma Shankar v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 28652 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 11760 (11 July 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.

It is contended that the petitioner had taken loan of Rs. 40,000/- from the respondent Bank in the year 1996.  The petitioner alleges to have deposited certain instalments and thereafter he committed a default.  The Bank however in order to settle the outstanding dues provided one time settlement scheme.  The petitioner opted for the scheme under which he was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 14,050/- towards one time settlement  of the loan amount.  The amount is said to have deposited on 25.6.2005.  After more than two years the respondent Bank initiated recovery proceedings for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- against the petitioner.  This recovery is being challenged on the ground that the loan account  stands closed with the payment under the one time settlement scheme.

In the opinion of the Court the grievance raised by the petitioner can be more appropriately examined by the Branch Manager, respondent no. 2.  Accordingly the writ petition is disposed with liberty to the petitioner to file a representation along with a certified copy of this order within two weeks from today.  

On such a representation being made the respondent no. 2 shall call for the records and after examining the same shall pass a reasoned speaking order strictly in accordance with law within four weeks, thereafter.

Initially for a period of six weeks from today no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner and thereafter the recovery shall abide the order to be passed by the Branch Manager on the representation.

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Writ petition is disposed of.

Dated: 11.7.2007

V.R./28652/07


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.