Allowed

ajab singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC25 Jan 2018WRIC/3360/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition concerning a defaulted bank loan. The court ordered the petitioner to repay the dues in five six-monthly installments. Recovery proceedings were stayed with the exception that coercive processes resume upon default. Attached properties were to be released after the first installment.

What did the court decide?

Deposits of total amount in five six-monthly installments; recovery proceedings stayed; attached property released.

ajab singh Vs State of U.P. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3360 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Ajab Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Petitioner :- Mr Dharam Veer Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mr Satish Chaturvedi

¶4

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

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Abhay Dwivedi 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 five equal six monthly installments.

¶10

(ii) The first installment shall be deposited by 19.3.2018 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 :- 25.1.2018 Rahul /-

ajab singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

ajab singh v. State of U.P.

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

Rajeev Kumar Vs Pashchimanchal Electricity Distribution Division Ltd. and 3 Others

Paramhans Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Lalmani Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd. Idrish-I Vs M.D. U.P.State Transport Corporationupsrtc and 2 Others

Smt. Suman Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 others

smt. khemwati Vs State of U.P. and 3 others