High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Denso India Ltd. Thru' Authorised Representative v. State Of U.P. Thru' Collector & Others - WRIT - C No. 11305 of 2005  RD-AH 5691 (14 November 2005)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11305 of 2005 Court No. 1
Denso India Ltd. Vs. State of UP and others.
HON'BLE YATINDRA SINGH, J.
HON'BLE R.K. RASTOGI, J.
1. D.I.N.D. Karamchari Vetan Bhogi Sahkari Rin Samiti Ltd (the cooperative society) is a cooperative society of the employees of the petitioner company. The Cooperative society took three cash credit limit loans on 29.7.1995, 8.3.1996 and 14.3.1997 from Ghaziabad District Cooperative Bank Ltd (the Bank). These loans were given to the cooperative society on the different undertakings given by the petitioner on 30.6.1995, 7.10.1995 and 11.3.1997. The undertaking was that the petitioner will be responsible for deduction of the loan instalments from the salaries of the employees per month and deposit the same with the Bank. It was further undertaken that in case any employee leaves the service or expires then the petitioner company will pay the amount due to the Bank. It appears that the loan could not be paid back by the cooperative society and the recovery was issued. Hence the present writ petition.
2. We have heard counsel for the petitioner, Standing counsel for the respondents and Sri Nikhil Kumar for the Bank. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner company has not given any guarantee and as such loan can not be recovered from it. It is only partly correct. The petitioner company had given undertaking that they will deduct the monthly instalment from the salary of the petitioner. The Bank has filed supplementary counter affidavit in which they have annexed the details of 230 employees who are responsible to pay back the loan alongwith interest and the instalment per month that is to be deducted from their salaries. In view of this the petitioner company is liable to deduct the amount mentioned therein and deposit the same with the Bank.
3. The counsel for the petitioner next submitted that there is discrepancy in the amount mentioned in the recovery certificate and the amount mentioned in the annexure-SA-2 to the supplementary counter affidavit. Be as it may, the petitioner has not taken loan. The loan has been taken by respondent no. 4 and its members. The petitioner company is liable to deduct the amount mentioned in this annexure and deposit the same therein. In case there is any dispute regarding the amount it may be raised before appropriate forum by Respondent no. 4 or its members. This company will start deducting the instalment as mentioned in SA-2 to the supplementary counter affidavit from the salaries of the employees mentioned in the Annexure. This may be done from the month of November 2005 payable from December 2005. This amount shall be deposited with the Bank. However, in case any employee has left the service or expires them it would be open to the Bank to restart recovery proceedings against the petitioner company in accordance with the undertaking given by them. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.