Disposed

Hriday Narayan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC28 Mar 2018WRIC/11265/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding loan recovery. The court directed the petitioner to deposit the outstanding amount in eight equal six-monthly installments, stay recovery proceedings, release attached properties, and defer collection charges until the Collector determines the fee.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings stayed pending payment of the loan amount in eight equal six monthly installments; attached properties released; collection charges determined by Collector later.

Hriday Narayan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11265 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Hriday Narayan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rohit Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Rohit Yadav counsel for the respondent-bank.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the amount which is sought to be recovered from him.

¶7

Admittedly, the petitioner took loan from the respondent-Bank concerned out of which petitioner has not paid substantial amount. Petitioner submits that he is ready to deposit whole of the amount in easy installment. Learned counsel for the Bank states that the anxiety of the Bank is that the amount should be recovered back.

¶8

Accordingly this petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶9

(i) Petitioner may deposit the entire amount sought to be recovered directly in concerned Bank in eight equal six monthly installments.

¶10

(ii) The first installment shall be deposited by 30.4.2018 and the rest of installments shall be deposited at interval of six months thereafter. These deposits shall be made before the Branch of the Bank from where the loan was taken.

¶11

(iii) Recovery proceedings during this period will be kept in abeyance. In case petitioner commits default in depositing any of the installments within the above stipulated time, it will be open to the respondents to start the recovery proceedings again by taking coercive process to which the petitioner undertake not to challenge.

¶12

(iv) Petitioner may file an application for supply of statement of account along with the duly stamped self addressed envelope. In case any such application is filed, the concerned branch of the Bank will give the same to the petitioner after deposit of the first installment within fifteen days and in calculating the arrears, the amount (if any) already paid will be adjusted.

¶13

(v) Property (agricultural land/tractor) belonging to the petitioner, if attached, in connection with recovery proceedings, will be released by the concerned Tehsil authority (unless it has been auctioned) after deposit of first installment and further as soon as the first installment is paid, the property (agricultural land/tractor) of the petitioner shall also be released.

¶14

(vi) In case all the installments are deposited as per the schedule fixed in this order, the recovery of the collection charges would remain in abeyance till such time the Collector decides the application that may be filed by the petitioner for determining collection charges/fee as per the legal provisions and also taking into consideration the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Maharajwa and others versus State of U.P. and others, reported in 2013(1) ADJ 426 (FB) . Upon determination of collection charges/fee the Collector will communicate the same to the petitioner and upon communication of the same it would be open to the petitioner to either deposit the same within a period of 30 days or if not satisfied with the same may assail the order of the Collector in appropriate proceedings.

¶15

Order Date :- 28.3.2018 Rahul /-

Hriday Narayan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hriday Narayan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devendra Kumar alias Sheroo Vs Nagar Nigam and 5 others

Vijay Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sohail Ahmad Assistant Manager U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs Sone Lal Gupta and Another

Siya Ram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashish Kansal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Sunita Verma Vs Regional Manager, State Bank of India and Another