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


Jagveer Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Revenue & Others - WRIT - C No. 68516 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5128 (28 October 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).


Hon. S. K. Singh, J.

This petition challenges the recovery proceedings by taking coercive process on account of default in paying the loan amount.

Submission is that although loan is an old one but at the same time petitioner has deposited handsome amount from time to time and thus if some month time is allowed for depositing the entire amount sought to be recovered from him directly with the respondent bank, petitioner may be saved of irreparable injury which has to occasion on account of auction and arrest.

To the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for Bank/Samiti submits that although in some of the cases it has been said that against the recovery proceedings unless some illegality is pointed out the court may not interfere but at the same time submission is that intention of the respondent bank has been never to cause any irreparable injury to the loanee rather the loan amount was advanced with the purpose to improve the petitioner's future prospects and thus if for justifiable reason the amount in terms of the agreement has not been paid and now petitioner has bonafide intention to pay the amount within a reasonable time then if that liberty is given, it will serve the interest of both sides i.e. petitioner may be saved from the riggers of coercive process i.e. arrest, auction of the properties and at the same time respondent bank will get its full amount with interest. Thus for grant of reasonable time, if that is to advance justice, respondents may not have any objection.

In view of the aforesaid although this Court is not much convinced with the grounds so taken but with an intention that if petitioner's statement is proved to be correct then the bank will get its money and the petitioner may be saved of irreparable injury, propose to pass the following  order:

1. Petitioner is directed to deposit the entire outstanding amount against him directly with the respondent bank by 16th January, 2006.

2. If the amount is deposited then no recovery will proceed against the petitioner by taking coercive process.

3. In case petitioner defaults in depositing any of the instalments within the above stipulated time, it will be open to the respondents to start recovery proceedings again by taking coercive process at once to which the petitioner undertakes not to challenge.

4. This order will not affect any auction if it has already taken place. In that event the petitioner may take appropriate legal proceedings to set aside the auction under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and Rules, 1952 or file a suit in accordance with law.

5. If any fact given from the side of the petitioner is found to be incorrect by the bank authorities, it will be open for them to move an application for modification/recall of  the order.

With the aforesaid writ 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.