This court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of a bank's recovery notice. The court held that disputes over loan repayment instalments are commercial matters for the bank's exercise, not for judicial intervention via Writ Jurisdiction.
Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to approach the bank for instalment fixation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33776 of 2018
Petitioner :- Chandra Shekhar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- M J Akhtar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ganesh Shanker Srivastava
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri M.J. Akhtar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ganesh Shanker Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent No.1.
The petitioner in this writ petition, is seeking quashing of the impugned recovery notice dated 30.8.2018, whereby the amount of Rs. 664589/- is said to be recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner took a bank loan for the business of crushing of paddy. He could not pay the loan and therefore, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, District Legal Service Cell, Gorakhpur on 17.9.2017 for settlement. It was agreed that the petitioner would pay a sum of Rs. 5,93,531/-. It is stated that the amount was required to be paid by 31.3.2018, failing which the petitioner would be liable to pay interest at the bank rates. The petitioner failed to pay off the entire amount under the settlement even by 31.3.2018, and therefore, the impugned notice has been issued to the petitioner for a sum of Rs.664589/-.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that if he is given some more time, he shall pay the amount of Rs.2,93,000/-. In our opinion, this is a matter for which the petitioner should approach the respondent bank and try to settle the dispute with the bank itself. It is not the business of the High Court to enter into commercial transactions between the two parties and fix easy instalments for repayment of loan between the parties.
We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the respondent bank for fixation of instalments.
Order Date :- 8.10.2018 Ak/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should quash a recovery notice issued by a bank after a failed attempted settlement at Lok Adalat.
Chandra Shekhar Singh
State Of U.P.
B. Amit Sthalekar
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
