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


Baijnath Yadav v. U.P. Khadi And Village Industries Board, Lko. Th. Secretary - WRIT - C No. 32067 of 2001 [2005] RD-AH 3039 (19 September 2005)


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).


Court No. 1

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.32067 of 2001

Baijnath Yadav vs. The UP Khadi and Village Industries Board, Lucknow and others



1. this is a writ petition against the recovery of two loans taken by the Modern Anaj Dal Prasodhan Audhyogik Utpadan Sahkari Samiti Limited Chiraiya Kot, Tehsil Mohammadabad Gohna, district Mau (the Society). The first loan was for Rs. 1,46,000/- and  was taken on 2.5.1995. The second loan was for Rs. 3,00,000/- and was taken on 25.7.1998.  The petitioner is president of the society. It is being recovered from him, hence the present writ petition.

2. We  have heard Counsel for the petitioner,  Standing Counsel and Sri Rajiv Sharma  counsel for the respondents. It is not disputed that the petitioner was the president of the Society  when the loans were given to the Society. It is also not disputed that the loan was given to the Society and not to the petitioner. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was guarantor so far as second  loan of Rs. 3,00,000/-  which was taken on 25.7.1998 is concerned but there is dispute between the parties whether the petitioner is guarantor of the first loan of Rs. 1,46,000/- that was taken on 2.5.1995.

3. In the circumstances of the case it would be appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition as follows:

4. The petitioner may make a representation regarding the first loan of Rs. 1,46,000/- to respondent no. 5 within one month  on the following two points:

(i)Whether the petitioner is guarantor of first loan of Rs. 1,46,000/- or not.

(ii)Whether the property of petitioner stood as security for this loan.

Respondent no. 5 may decide the representation expeditiously, if possible, within three months from the date of receipt of the representation.  In case after decision the petitioner is found liable to pay the sum of Rs. 1,46,000/-  on the ground that he is guarantor or his property stands security for this loan, then recovery may start again so far as  this loan is concerned.

5. But so far as the loan for Rs. 3,00,000/- taken on 25.7.1998  is concerned, it is not disputed that petitioner is guarantor and his property stands as security for the same. The petitioner is willing to pay the same in instalments. In view of this, for the second loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- taken on 25.7.1998,  the writ petition is disposed of with following directions:

The petitioner may pay this amount of loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- alongwith interest in eight equal instalments.

The first instalment may be deposited before the end of Deember  2005 and the subsequent instalments may be deposited after the interval of every three months. These deposits may be made before respondent No. 5. In case instalments are deposited before respondent No. 5  then the recovery charges will not be recovered from the petitioner.

During this period, the recovery proceedings will be kept in abeyance. In case the petitioner  defaults in depositing the instalments within the above-stipulated time, it will be open to the respondents to start recovery proceedings again.

The petitioner  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 petitioner  by respondent No. 5   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.

6. With these directions the writ petition is disposed of.

Date: 19.9.05,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    



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.