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


Ashok Kumar And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 2662 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 1075 (17 January 2006)


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

By means of this writ petition petitioner has challenged notice dated 27.6.2005 which has been issued by the respondent bank informing the petitioner that out of the deposit of 35,000/= an amount of Rs.3,182/= has been deposited towards the recovery charges in Tahsil. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner earlier came to this court by filing writ petition i.e. writ petition No. 1937 of 2005 and at that time he annexed a Chit which was referred as recovery notice dated 28.8.2004 (Annexure-4 in that writ petition) by which he was informed that he is to pay an amount of Rs.2,81,679/= upto the period of 28.8.2004 plus interest. That writ petition was finally disposed of by this court on 8.1.2005 by which petitioner was directed to deposit entire amount in four equal quarterly instalment upon which recovery charges was directed to be waived. It also appears that in that writ petition an application for modification has already been filed in May,2005 which is still pending. Be as it may, now in respect to the deposit of an amount of Rs.35,000/= respondent bank has intimated the petitioner, as indicated above.

Now submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner may be given some further time to make required deposits and at the same time recovery charges may be directed to be waived.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel who appears for the respondent bank this court is of the view that so far recovery charge is concerned this court in the earlier writ petition has already given needed directions and recovery charges are to be waived on compliance of that order. So far submission in respect to grant of time is concerned this court is of the view that by means of second writ petition it is not to be done and remedy of the petitioner, if any, is to file proper application in that very writ petition as the matter is to go before the same Hon'ble Judge.

In view of the aforesaid, this court feels sorry in not extending either of the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner so vehemently argued, and thus this writ petition is disposed of in the light of the observations as made above.




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.