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


Ved Prakash Pandey v. The Tulsi Gramin Bank & Others - WRIT - C No. 68192 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5587 (10 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.

Prayer in this petition is for a direction to the respondent not to recover the amount payable by the petitioner, by taking any coercive process.

There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner took an amount of Rs. 30,000/- from the respondent bank and till date he has not paid a single penny.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that now petitioner is ready to pay the amount and a reasonable time may be given.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties this Court is not satisfied with the bonafide of the petitioner for the simple reason that for more than four years not a single penny was deposited by him and his intention to pay as stated before this Court is apparently for compelling reasons which cannot be taken in good faith.

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.

At this stage without challenging correctness of amount sought to be recovered a prayer has been made that if amount sought to be recovered is permitted to be deposited in easy instalments, deposit of entire amount can be made.

On a consideration of the aforesaid, this Court being satisfied with the bonafides of the petitioner proposes to dispose of this writ petition by giving following directions :

i) Petitioner is permitted to deposit the entire outstanding amount payable by him to the bank directly in the respondent bank within a period of three months from today.

ii) If the amount is deposited directly in the respondent bank no recovery charges will be taken from the petitioner.

iii) In the event of default  respondents will be free to recover the amount by taking any coercive process.

iv) 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.