Disposed

Rakesh Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC12 Nov 2018WRIC/30136/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court found no infirmity in the District Magistrate's order declaring the petitioner's account as NPA. Although the petitioner was ineligible for the Debt Waiver Scheme due to landholding limits, the court disposed of the petition by staying recovery proceedings conditioned upon repayment of the outstanding amount in six installments.

What did the court decide?

Recovery proceedings stayed pending payment of entire outstanding amount with interest in six installments starting with Rs.50,000 within one month.

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

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30136 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Rakesh Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Phool Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Fahd Iqbal

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶5

Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶6

The instructions supplied by learned Standing Counsel records that the petitioner is ineligible for the benefit of the Debt Waiver Scheme for the reason that he owns more than 2.0 Hectares of land and would not fall within the meaning of small and marginal farmer.

¶7

Along with the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-bank, the loan agreement and the RBI guidelines have been brought on record which provides norms of income recognition, the assets classification and provision relating to impaired assets.

¶8

With reference to the said document, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after declaration of the loan account of the petitioner as NPA (Non Performing Asset), mere credit of Rs.7000/- in the loan account made from the saving account of the petitioner as per the loan agreement, would not revive the NPA account. That means that the irregularities on account of which, the loan account of the petitioner has been declared NPA would not stand regularized.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the averments made in Paragraph '3' of the writ petition and the copy of Khatuani at Page-20 of the paper book to assert that the petitioner owns less than 1.2330 Hectares land which fact is against the report submitted by the Tehsildar dated 10.11.2018 which records that apart from the land, details of which has been given at Page 20 of the paper book, the petitioner owns other lands in the same village as also in other villages.

¶10

The details as given in the instructions supplied by learned counsel for the respondents cannot be disbelieved for the reason that there is no assertion in the writ petition that apart from the land mentioned therein the petitioner does not own any other land in the same village or any other village. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is eligible for the benefit of Debt Relief Scheme being small and marginal farmer is, therefore, devoid of any force.

¶11

As far as the submission of learned counsel for the respondentbank with regard to the account in question being declared NPA, no plausible answer could be given by learned counsel for the petitioner. The contention in the rejoinder affidavit filed today are in the nature of reiteration of what has been stated in the writ petition.

¶12

Having perused the guidelines as brought on record, with the declaration of a loan account being NPA (Non Performing Asset), the entire loan amount becomes outstanding or overdue. The petitioner has no option but to repay the entire outstanding so as to liquidate the debt. The bank is under no obligation to revive the amount inasmuch as, the petitioner loanee has been declared a defaulter.

¶13

For the aforesaid, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that since Rs.7000/- had been transferred in the loan account of the petitioner from saving account by the bank on its own, it would amount to revival of the loan account is based on misconception and baseless.

¶14

For the aforesaid reasons, no infirmity is found in the order impugned dated 9.7.2018 passed by the District Magistrate. Further no mandamus can be issued to the bank to decide the representation dated 16.8.2018 moved by him for revival of NPA Account for the aforesaid reasons.

¶15

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to repay the entire outstanding in easy instalments so that he can liquidate the debt.

¶16

To this submission, learned counsel for the respondent-bank raises no objection.

¶17

Considering the aforesaid facts, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶18

The recovery proceedings shall remain in abeyance provided;

¶19

(1) The petitioner pays the entire outstanding amount with up-todate interest in six installments to be deposited before the bank authorities.

¶20

(2) The first installment of Rs.50,000/- shall be paid within a period of one month from today.

¶21

(3) On deposit of the first installment, the respondent bank would furnish the complete statement of accounts showing all the deposits which have been made by the petitioner till date and the balance amount payable.

¶22

(4) Rest of the amount shall be deposited by the petitioner in remaining five equal quarterly installments.

¶23

(5) Any amount already deposited shall be given adjustment.

¶24

(6) The petitioner shall make deposit of the last installment along with up-to-date interest.

¶25

(7) In the event of default in any of the installments, it would be open to the respondents to recover the amount forthwith.

¶26

Order Date :- 12.11.2018/Jyotsana

Rakesh Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajai Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 02 Others

Ravindra Rai Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Gaurav Mishra Vs State of U P and Another

Dayaram Vs Presiding Officer Labour Court and Another

Ram Das Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Durga Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others