High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Chandra Deo Rai & Another v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 6774 of 2006  RD-AH 3322 (14 February 2006)
Hon. S. K. Singh, J.
Supplementary affidavit filed is taken on record.
Challenge in this petition is the recovery proceeding initiated against the petitioner for an amount of Rs. 1,51,862/-etc. is sought to be recovered.
There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner took loan of Rs. 1,54,000/- from the respondent bank in the year 1996 and paid substantial amount but could not pay the entire instalments within time upon which recovery proceedings have been started. The loan was to be paid by the year 2005. Thus it is clear that the entire time schedule so provided by the bank is over. This Court is to give some reasonable time if the time schedule provided by the bank is still there and default has occasioned but not to extend the time schedule so as to interfere in the time frame so provided by the bank.
Be as it may, keeping in mind the fact that petitioner is agriculturist and agriculture is his main source of livelihood and in the event of taking of coercive process petitioner will suffer irreparable injury, this Court permits deposit of the entire amount sought to be recovered by allowing breathing period to the petitioner.
To the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for Bank/Samiti submits that although in some of the cases it has been said that against the recovery proceedings unless some illegality is pointed out the court may not interfere but at the same time submission is that intention of the respondent bank has been never to cause any irreparable injury to the loanee rather the loan amount was advanced with the purpose to improve the petitioner's future prospects and thus if for justifiable reason the amount in terms of the agreement has not been paid and now petitioner has bonafide intention to pay the amount within a reasonable time then if that liberty is given, it will serve the interest of both sides i.e. petitioner may be saved from the riggers of coercive process i.e. arrest, auction of the properties and at the same time respondent bank will get its full amount with interest. Thus for grant of reasonable time, if that is to advance justice, respondents may not have any objection.
In view of the aforesaid the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions :
1. Petitioner is directed to deposit the entire amount sought to be recovered from him pursuant to the recovery proceedings within a period of two months from today directly with the respondent bank.
2. If the amount is deposited as directed above no recovery charges will be recovered.
3. 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 the amount as directed above, 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 undertakes not to object.
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.
With the aforesaid direction writ petition stands disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.