Dismissed

Dheer Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2018WRIC/34627/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought to quash a recovery citation issued by a bank for a substantial sum. The court held that the petitioner had failed to perform his undertaking to repay the remaining amount within the stipulated time. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the High Court stated it is not in the nature of the Court to fix instalments in contractual matters.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The recovery citation was not quashed. The High Court refused to fix instalments or grant further time.

Dheer Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34627 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Dheer Singh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alka Srivastava,Santosh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Tarun Varma

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Santosh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.S. Pandey holding brief of Sri Tarun Varma, learned counsel for the Bank - respondent Nos.4 and 5 and learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.

¶6

The petitioner in this writ petition is seeking quashing of recovery citation dated 19.09.2018 issued for recovery of a sum of Rs.71,25,628/-. According to the petitioner, he wrote a letter dated 09.05.2018 to the Bank (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) for one time settlement giving an undertaking before the Bank that he would be depositing a sum of Rs.6,75,000/- on the same day and rest amount he would repay within three months from the date of intimation of the approval of the settlement. His contention is that he was never informed the date of approval. However, from the documents on record we notice that on 12.07.2018, the Bank accepted his deposit of Rs.6,75,000/- and for the rest amount, directed that the same be paid by 08.08.2018.

¶7

In our opinion, when the petitioner had given an undertaking on 09.05.2018 for making good the deposit within three months, it means he had resources to pay off the remaining amount within that period of time. It is immaterial as to when his request is accepted, and even otherwise he had 90 days' time from 09.05.2018 upto 08.08.2018 to make good the remaining amount of dues. The petitioner has failed to perform his own part of the undertaking. In such circumstances, in our opinion, he cannot assail the recovery citation of Rs.71,25,628/-.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that some further time for making good the deposit may be granted by this Court.

¶9

In our opinion, this is not the business of the High Court to fix instalments in a contractual matter between the parties which would amount to rewriting the terms and conditions of the contract. If the petitioner wants time to be extended to make good the remaining amount of dues, he may negotiate with the Bank.

¶10

The writ petition is dismissed.

¶11

Order Date :- 11.10.2018 NLY

Dheer Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheer Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 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

Smt. Shabana Aftab Vs State Bank of India and 4 Others

Dilip Dhameja Vs Bank of Baroda Govind Nagar Kanpur Nagar and Another

Smt. Vimla Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector Mainpuri and Ors.

Pradeep Garg Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Pushpa Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others