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


Subhash Chandra Sharma v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. & Others - WRIT - C No. 69110 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5247 (7 November 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.

Supplementary affidavit filed is taken on record.

Argument is that in view of the notice dated 4.10.2005 (annexure no. 1 to the writ petition) petitioner can be said to be liable to pay an amount so mentioned in that notice and thus demand of higher amount by the recovery certificate dated 19.10.2005 cannot be said to be justified.

In view of the aforesaid petitioner submits that he may be permitted to deposit an amount of Rs. 21,614/- which will be in accordance with the notice dated 4.10.2005, on deduction of the collection charges.

After hearing the aforesaid, this Court being prima facie satisfied with the stand of the petitioner permits him to deposit an amount of Rs. 21,614/- (on deduction of collection charges) as demanded by notice dated 4.10.2005. The aforesaid amount is to be deposited in four monthly instalments. The first three instalments will be of Rs. 5,000/- each and thereafter balance will be deposited in fourth instalment. The first instalment will be deposited by Ist of December, 2005 and thereafter the remaining monthly instalment on the Ist day of successive months.

If the amount is deposited in the manner aforesaid no further amount shall be recovered from the petitioner. In the event of default in depositing any of the aforesaid instalments the respondent bank will be free to recover the entire amount at once.

This arrangement is subject to final orders of this Court on filing the counter affidavit by the respondents.

Notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 to 3 have been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. Sri M. P. Gupta, learned Advocate  has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 4 and 5.

All the respondents may file counter affidavit by the next date.

List this petition in the month of February, 2006.





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.