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


Ravindra Kumar Rai v. The Collector/District Magistrate & Others - WRIT - C No. 53958 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7021 (6 December 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.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sahai, learned Advocate who appears for the respondent bank.

This is an application for modification in the order dated 18.8.2005 passed by this Court by which petitioner was directed to deposit the required amount in four quarterly instalments.

It has been submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances money could not be deposited but now money is ready with the petitioner and he is ready to deposit the same within a period of ten days from today. It has been further submitted that petitioner will not file any further modification application and, therefore, indulgence may be allowed this time. Be as it may, this Court proposes to dispose of this application by giving the following directions :

In view of the aforesaid learned counsel for the  respondent bank submits that bank's intention is to get its money and not to cause irreparable injury to the petitioner and in fact loan was advanced  to improve the means of the petitioner and to place him  in a better position. Submission is that if the petitioner has a bonafide on his part to pay the loan amount and as stated by him that money has been arranged. then slight indulgence may be given but that liberty may not be misused by the petitioner and thus this care is to be taken.

In view of the aforesaid in order to test the bonafide of the petitioner this petition is disposed of by giving following directions :

1. Petitioner is directed to deposit the amount in terms of the order of this Court dated 18.8.2005  within a period of ten days from today directly with the respondent bank.

2. If the amount is deposited as indicated above then the amount covered by the remaining instalment may be deposited by the date by which he was permitted to deposit by the earlier order dated 18.8.2005.

3. It is made clear that if the amount is deposited in the aforesaid manner respondent will not proceed to recover the amount by taking any coercive process.

4. In the event of default in depositing any instalment in future in terms of the order dated 18.8.2005, the interim protection given by this Court shall cease to operate and it will be open for the respondent bank to recover the amount by taking any coercive process to which petitioner states not to object before any other forum.

5. If any fact given by the petitioner on the basis of which this order is being passed is found to be false by the respondent bank, it will be open for the bank officials to move appropriate application for recall/ modification of the order.  

The application is disposed of with the aforesaid directions.





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.