High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Smt. Sudama Devi v. D.M., Jaunpur & Others - WRIT - C No. 43281 of 2000  RD-AH 5747 (14 November 2005)
Hon'ble Yatindra Singh,J.
The petitioner's husband had taken loan from respondent no. 4 for purchase of Tempo. He could not pay the same. In the meantime, he also expired. Thereafter respondent no. 4 issued recovery against the petitioner, hence the present writ petition.
We have heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the respondents.
No counter affidavit has been filed. The loan was taken by the husband of the petitioner. It cannot be recovered from the petitioner unless the petitioner was a guarantor. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was a guarantor of the loan. In view of this the respondents are restrained from recovering the amount of loan from the petitioner. However, it will be open to the respondents to recover the amount of loan from the property left by the husband of the petitioner or from any guarantor for the loan. In case any amount has already been deposited either by the petitioner or by her husband, the same may be adjusted.
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.