Disposed

Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Apr 2018WRIC/13362/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition for quashing a recovery citation for an agricultural loan. It stayed recovery proceedings if the petitioner deposits the dues in eight quarterly installments and released attached property upon the first deposit.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings stayed pending deposit of dues in 8 quarterly installments; attached property to be released after first installment.

Surendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13362 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Surendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhupendra Kuamr Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neeraj Dwivedi

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Sri B.K. Tripathi for the petitioner; the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents 1 and 2; and Sri Neeraj Dwivedi for the respondent no.3-bank.

¶6

The present petition has been filed for quashing the recovery citation dated 14.03.2018 issued by Tehsildar Amriya, district Pilibhit for recovery of Rs. 25,01,709/62 plus other charges towards dues in respect of agricultural loan availed by the petitioner from the respondent no.3.

¶7

On 12.04.2018, this court required Sri Neeraj Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3, to seek instructions whether the petitioner has filed any other writ petition either before this Court or before the Uttrakhand High Court.

¶8

Pursuant to the order dated 12.04.2018, Sri Neeraj Dwivedi has obtained instructions from the bank and, according to the instructions, no other writ petition has been filed.

¶9

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

¶10

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 installments. Counsel for the Bank states that the anxiety of the Bank is that the amount is recovered back.

¶11

Accordingly this petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶12

(i) Petitioner may deposit the entire amount sought to be recovered directly in concerned Bank in 8 quarterly installments .

¶13

(ii) The first installment shall be deposited by 15.05.2018 and the rest of installments shall be deposited at intervals of three months thereafter . These deposits shall be made with the Branch of the Bank from where the loan was taken.

¶14

(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 undertakes not to challenge.

¶15

(iv) Petitioner may file an application for supply of statement of account along with the duly stamped self addressed envelope. In case any such

¶16

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.

¶17

(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 already been auctioned) after deposit of first installment. However, unless the property has already been auctioned, no third property right shall be created by the petitioner in either mortgaged or hypothecated property till entire bank dues are cleared.

¶18

(vi) If the installments are deposited as per the schedule fixed in this order, the recovery of collection charges would remain in abeyance till such time the Collector takes a decision and determines the collection charges/fee payable as per the legal provisions and in the light of 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 upon which the petitioner would either deposit the same within a period of 30 days or, if not satisfied, would be at liberty to assail the same in appropriate proceedings.

¶19

Order Date :- 23.4.2018 Sunil Kr Tiwari

Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Sunny Vs State of U.P.

Vijaynath Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Qasim Hasan Vs Sheo Nath and 14 Others

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

Anoop Chandra Soni Vs Additional District Judge Ii, Gautam Buddh Nagar and 2 Others

Jayram Singh Vs Registrar Firms Societies and Chits and 3 Others