Dismissed

Brajesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Oct 2018WRIC/34771/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of the writ petition seeking a direction to decide a representation on a housing loan dispute. It directed the bank to consider a fresh representation regarding deposit terms within two months if filed within 15 days, while clarifying no adjudication on merits occurred.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Branch Manager of Bank of Baroda to consider and decide the petitioner's fresh representation on depositing the remaining loan amount within two months if preferred within 15 days.

Brajesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34771 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Brajesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shravan Kumar Dubey,Prakash Chandra Tiwari

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anadi Krishna Narayana

¶5

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

¶6

Heard Sri Shravan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sandeep Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents no.2 & 3 and learned standing counsel for the respondent no.1.

¶7

The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking a direction to the respondents to decide his representation dated 05.10.2018.

¶8

The averments of the writ petition show that the petitioner took a housing loan amounting to Rs. 6.10 Lacs on 24.08.2009 to be paid back in 15 years in 180 installments. It is stated that till 24.01.2017 the petitioner paid back Rs.5,85,312/- but thereafter his loan account has been changed to N.P.A. and when he made enquiry for depositing the remaining loan amount he was informed that the remaining loan amount is to be deposited in another account.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank informs that till date no demand notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been issued to the petitioner.

¶10

In respect of his claim the petitioner is stated to have preferred representations dated 27.08.2010 and 05.10.2012 through registered post.

¶11

In our opinion, if the petitioner is willing to deposit the remaining loan amount and wants time for the same it is for the Bank to take a decision on the petitioner's representations.

¶12

We therefore dispose of this writ petition with a direction that if the petitioner prefers a fresh representation before the respondent no.3, Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Branch Nadeshar (Sigra), District Varanasi disclosing where he wants to deposit the remaining loan amount and in how many installments, within a period of 15 days from today alongwith the certified copy of this order, the respondent no.3 shall

¶13

consider and decide the same in accordance with law within a further period of two months.

¶14

It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits.

¶15

Order Date :- 12.10.2018 N Tiwari

Brajesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brajesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 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

M/S Gayatri Associates Developer Wonder City Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Cma Cgm Logistics Park (Dadri) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jay Kumar Vs State of U P and 3 Others

M/S Diamond Refractories and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

M/S Saurabh General and Kirana Store Vs State of U P and 2 Others

M/S Aditya Traders and Another Vs Corporation Bank and Another