Disposed

Vipin Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2018WRIC/13503/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition challenging a recovery certificate was disposed of in view of the petitioner's readiness to pay the entire amount in quarterly installments. Recovery proceedings were kept in abeyance, subject to default clauses, and specific directions were issued regarding account statements and release of attached properties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to deposit entire amount in 8 quarterly installments; recovery proceedings to be kept in abeyance; attached property to be released on first installment.

Vipin Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13503 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Vipin Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Yadav,Atmaram Nadiwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents 1 to 3; and Sri Tarun Verma for the respondent no.4bank.

¶6

The present petition has been filed against the recovery certificate dated 24.11.2017 seeking to recover a sum of Rs. 3,14,350/- from the petitioner towards credit facility availed by the petitioner from the respondent-bank for agricultural purposes.

¶7

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

¶8

Admittedly, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner took loan from the respondent-Bank concerned out of which substantial amount has not been paid. 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.

¶9

Accordingly this petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶10

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

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

(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.

¶14

(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

¶15

auctioned, no third property right shall be created by the petitioner in either mortagaged or hypothecated property till entire bank dues are cleared.

¶16

(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.

¶17

Order Date :- 17.4.2018 Sunil Kr Tiwari

Vipin Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vipin Kumar Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and 2 Others Vs Shri Ashok Agrawal and 3 Others

Fletcher Joseph Patel Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shri Bhagwan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. and Others Vs Santosh Kumar Verma and Others

Kadeer Ahamad Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajendra Singh and 36 Others Vs Collector/ District Magistrate Gorakhpur and 3 Others