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


Kamal v. State of U.P. Thru' Secy. & Others - WRIT - C No. 67262 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5784 (16 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.

Challenge in this petition is the citation dated 22.9.2005 by which on account of default in paying the loan amount recovery process has been issued for an amount of Rs. 2,75,000/-.

This petition was filed on 24.11.2005 and since thereafter five dates have been fixed but  on one ground or the other the hearing of the matter was being postponed. Counsel for the petitioner was directed to file supplementary affidavit annexing the proof in respect to the year of the taking of the loan and about averment of deposit of an amount of Rs. 32,250/-which is said to be deposited in the year 2004.

A bare perusal of the averment prompted this Court to become suspicious about averments made therein and, therefore, time was allowed to file the needed document but nothing has come from the side of the petitioner and now today the pretext is that in the fire in the house of the petitioner required document are lost. This appears to be a lam excuse and afterthought stand which has been stated after lapse of three weeks, after adjourning the matter on five occasions.

Be as it may, this Court is not satisfied with the correctness of the statement as made in the writ petition and this Court not being aware about year of the loan and in fact whether petitioner has deposited any amount or is not in a position to grant any relief to the petitioner.

As the petitioner has admittedly taken the loan he has to pay the same and if there is any default that has to be recovered in which no illegality has been found. Thus this Court is not to interfere in the recovery proceedings.

However, it is for the petitioner to move an application before the respondent bank for considering the matter sympathetically upon which it is for the respondent bank to consider the facts and circumstances and if the facts so warrant, petitioner may be permitted to deposit the amount within reasonable time.

With the aforesaid observation this Court declines to interfere in the matter.





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.