Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHOTKA @ CHUTAIYA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Chotka @ Chutaiya v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 3836 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 1528 (20 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon. S. K. Singh, J.

Prayer in this petition is for quashing recovery proceedings on the basis of proclamation dated 21.12.2005 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent bank and learned Standing Counsel.

This petition has been filed against the recovery proceedings which has been started in connection with realisation of the loan which is said to have been taken from the respondent bank. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is three fold-

i) Petitioner has not taken any loan.

ii) Even if petitioner's property is subjected to mortgage that appears to be wrong and petitioner do not know anything about it.

iii) No opportunity has been given to the petitioner.

It is further submitted that nobody is listening to the petitioner's grievance although he approached concerned District Magistrate and Manager of the respondent bank and therefore petitioner is to come to this court.

In view of the aforesaid the court has examined the matter.

At the very outset it can be safely said that all the questions so argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner relates to the question of facts and they neither can be accepted nor can be rejected without taking evidence in  support of it and thus as acceptance of the petitioner claim has to lead examination of various disputed questions of fact based on oral and documentary evidence which this court feels may not be permissible for this court straightway in writ jurisdiction. Whether petitioner took loan or not but as in the citation petitioner's property is shown, this court can have no doubt  that in the mortgage deed petitioner's property is mortgaged and thus if there is something wrong in this respect remedy to the petitioner can be elsewhere but certainly not by means of writ petition straightway and therefore, this court is not in a position to entertain and adjudicate this issued at this stage.

Be as it may, submission of the learned counsel that nobody is listening petitioner''s problem, if it is so then it is not correct. The concerned authorities are required to hear the petitioner and if he is right he is entitle to get relief also.

Accordingly without interfering into recovery proceedings at this stage this petition can be very conveniently disposed of by making observation that if petitioner has any tribal matter and if his  contention is found to be correct on examination of record then concerned authority may hear him and take appropriate decision.

With the aforesaid observation, for the reasons indicated this court declines to interfere in the proceedings. This writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

20.1.2006

M.A.A.


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.