Dismissed

Surendra Singh v. Shakha Prabandhak Canera Bank, Branch Ramaganj and 3 Others

Allahabad HC10 Dec 2018A227/9228/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the conclusion that a suit for injunction was barred by Section 3 (3) of the U.P. Public Moneys Act due to lack of fraud plea. The higher court noted the remedy lies under the U.P.Z.A. and L.R.Act, 1950, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed confirming that remedy lies under U.P.Z.A. and L.R.Act, 1950 for challenging recovery.

Surendra Singh Vs Shakha Prabandhak… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 9228 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Surendra Singh Respondent :- Shakha Prabandhak Canera Bank, Branch Ramaganj And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dushyant Singh,Mahesh Chand

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

The conclusion drawn by the court below for the injunction suit being barred by Section 3 (3) of the U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972, is being challenged in the present petition on the basis of the finding returned in the injunction order dated 5.3.2013.

¶6

It is noteworthy that the suit for injunction was filed against the respondent-bank with the assertion that the plaintiff did not sign the loan agreement, rather the loan agreement for tractor allegedly executed on 1.12.2005 to the tune of Rs.3,30,000/-, was got signed by the private defendants no. 2 to 4, in connivance with the defendant no. 1 namely the bank. At no point of time, the plaintiff had approached the respondent-bank for execution of the loan agreement nor the loan agreement contains his signatures and photograph.

¶7

A perusal of the temporary injunction order dated 5.3.2013 indicates that though the fact of execution of loan agreement is not disputed, the court below has recorded a cursory finding that the signaturs on the loan agreement, which was brought on record by the respondent-bank, did not tally with the signatures of the plaintiff namely Surendra Singh, on the plaint, affidavits and vakalatnama filed in the instant suit. The said finding for grant of injunction cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, the signatures on the loan agreement could not have been tallied with the said documents. Further no effort has been made by the court below to get an expert report on the specimen signature of the plaintiff.

¶8

Further the finding with regard to the photograph of the plaintiff being different is also cursory.

¶9

The conclusion drawn by the appellate court below that the suit is barred by Section 3 (3) of the Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act is substantiated from a perusal of the plaint wherein no specific plea of fraud has been taken. The plaint averments are vague so as to make out the case of fraud on the part of the bank in execution of the loan agreement. However, the remedy

¶10

is available before the petitioner/plaintiff to seek redressal under the relevant provisions of U.P.Z.A. and L.R.Act, 1950 to assail the recovery of loan as arrears of land revenue.

¶11

The present petition is dismissed.

¶12

Order Date :- 10.12.2018 Pratima

Surendra Singh v. Shakha Prabandhak Canera Bank, Branch Ramaganj and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Singh v. Shakha Prabandhak Canera Bank, Branch Ramaganj and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Mohan and Another Vs Manoj

Mukesh Sharma Vs Raj Kumar Upadhyaya

Mohd. Hashrat Vs Sangam Shakahari Bhojnalaya, through Its Proprietor Smt. Munni Devi

Smt. Bhagirathi Devi Vs Smt.Anju Pandey and Another

Guduna Devi and 4 Others Vs Additional District Judge and 4 Others

Satpal and 3 Others Vs Om Veer and 15 Others