High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Princi Rice Mill Thru' Partner Mohd. Zahid Khan v. Regional Manager S.B.I. & Another - WRIT - C No. 61100 of 2005  RD-AH 2907 (15 September 2005)
Court No. 1
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.61100 of 2005
Princi Rice Milla and others vs. State Bank of India and others
HON'BLE YATINDRA SINGH, J.
HON'BLE RK RASTOGI, J
1. The petitioners were given credit by respondent No. 2 under the cash credit scheme. According to the petitioners they have paid part of the credit money but could not pay the entire credit money. The respondents have issued recovery notice against them for recovering the same as arrears of land revenue. Hence the present writ petition.
2. We have heard Counsel for the petitioners and the Sri Vipin Sinha, counsel for the respondents.
3. The counsel for the petitioners has made statement at the bar that this is the first writ petition against the recovery and this fact has also been stated in the writ petition. According to the petitioners they could not pay the amount due to the circumstances beyond their control. In view of this, it would be appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with following directions.
The petitioners may deposit the entire arrears in ten instalments. In calculating the arrears the amount (if any) already paid will be adjusted.
The first instalment may be deposited by the end of December 2005 and the subsequent instalments may be deposited after the interval of every three months. These deposits may be made before respondent No. 2 from where the credit money was taken. In case instalments are deposited before respondent No. 2 then the recovery charges will not be recovered from the petitioners.
During this period, the recovery proceedings will be kept in abeyance. In case the petitioners default in depositing the instalments within the above-stipulated time, it will be open to the respondents to start recovery proceedings again.
The petitioners may file application for the accounts along with duly stamped self-addressed envelope. In case any such application is filed, the same will be given to the petitioners by respondent No. 2 after deposit of first instalment.
This order will not affect any auction already held. In that event the petitioner may take appropriate legal proceedings to set aside the auction under UPZA & LR Act and Rules, 1952 or file a suit in accordance with law.
It is clarified that this order will not be operative in case the petitioner has filed any other earlier writ petition against the recovery.
4. With these directions the writ petition is disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.