Disposed

Govind Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Mar 2018WRIC/9782/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition for recovery of a bank loan was disposed of by directing the petitioner to deposit the amount in eight six-monthly installments. Recovery proceedings were kept in abeyance, and attached property was ordered to be released upon payment of the first installment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to deposit loan amount in eight six-monthly installments; recovery proceedings stayed; attached property ordered released upon first installment.

Govind Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9782 of 2018 Petitioner :- Govind Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kanhaiya Lal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gyan Prakash Shrivastava

¶2

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

¶3

Heard Sri Kanhaiya Lal, counsel for the petitioner, Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Gyan Prakash Shrivastava, counsel for the respondent-bank.

¶4

Counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the amount which is sought to be recovered from the petitioner.

¶5

Admittedly, the petitioner took loan from the respondent-Bank concerned out of which petitioner has not paid substantial amount. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to deposit whole of the amount in easy installments. Counsel for the Bank states that the anxiety of the Bank is that the amount should be recovered back.

¶6

Accordingly this petition is disposed o f with the following directions:

¶7

(i ) Petitioner may deposit the entire amount sought to be recovered directly in concerned Bank in 8 equal six monthly installments.

¶8

(ii) The first installment shall be deposited by 16.4.2018 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.

¶9

(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 undertakes not to challenge.

¶10

(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.

¶11

(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.

¶12

(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.

¶13

Order Date :- 16.3.2018/Jaideep/-

Govind Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Yadav 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhir Kumar Vishwakarma Vs State of Up through Principal Secretary Lucknow and Another

Jaipal Singh Vs Prescribed Authority/ City Magistrate and 2 Others

Kamala Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajesh Tripathi Vs State of up and others

harendra kumar pandey and 08 others Vs the secretary of personnel/karmik and another

uma shankar singh Vs State of U.P. and 02 others