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


Ram Bali v. District Consumer Protection Forum, Mirzapur And Others - WRIT - C No. 74430 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 7104 (7 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.

Challenge in this petition is the citation dated 30.8.2005 by which recovery proceeding against the petitioner has been started on account of non payment of the loan which was taken from the respondent bank.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amount sought to be recovered by the respondent bank is not correct and in fact challenging the action of the respondent case in the Consumer Forum has also been filed and in the suit also the issue about correctness of the amount in the recovery proceeding is to be decided and, therefore, this Court may direct for deposit of the amount which according to the petitioner is  payable by him and the remaining amount he may deposit on adjudication in this respect in the suit.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel who appeared for the bank, this Court takes the following decision :

There is no dispute about the fact that the loan was taken in the year 1995 and, therefore, about 10 years has already passed. There cannot be any dispute that the final payment schedule as given by the bank for repayment of the loan amount is already over. There is also no dispute about the fact that petitioner has filed petition before the consumer forum  wherein he also filed application for grant of stay, that has also been rejected. There is no dispute about the fact that the dispute relates to correctness of the amount which is sought to be recovered for which the needed adjudication is to take place in the suit. Be as it may, this Court is not required to go into various kind of factual dispute and that too in respect of loan which was taken about ten years back. Thus it is for the petitioner to take recourse for getting the disputed questions of fact resolved and then to take appropriate steps which may be said to be in accordance with law.

So far this Court is concerned, on the facts so stated in the writ petition, argument so noted this court is not satisfied that any interference is called for in the writ jurisdiction.

Writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed.





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.