Allowed

Jitendra Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2019WRIC/10765/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Single Judge Benches disposed of a writ petition seeking to quash a recovery notice. The Court allowed the petitioner to deposit the dues in five installments, upon which the bank must provide a simplified statement of account, and conditional relief was granted barring further recovery. q

What did the court decide?

Quashing of recovery notice, pending deposit of entire amount in five installments by 05.05.2019 onwards, subject to bank providing a statement and no further recovery charges.

Jitendra Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 28

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10765 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Jitendra Singh Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Madan Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amrish Sahai

¶4

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Madan Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Shri Amrish Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent-bank.

¶6

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.

¶7

By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing recovery notice dated 03.10.2018 for Rs.5,13,803/- plus other charges.

¶8

The petitioner had taken a loan for agricultural purpose. It is admitted to the petitioner that a default has been committed by the petitioner in making timely repayments of that loan. Consequently, recovery proceedings have been initiated against him.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to deposit the entire recovery amount within the time fixed by this Court.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing for the bank fairly states that the bank is interested in realizing the entire amount alongwith interest. If the petitioner deposits the amount within the time allowed by this Court, no further action shall be taken against the petitioner by the bank.

¶11

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶12

(i) The petitioner shall deposit the entire amount due to the bank in five installments beginning from 05.05.2019.

¶13

(ii) By way of first installment, the petitioner shall deposit Rs. 1,25,000/- on or before the date 05.05.2019.

¶14

(iii) On depositing the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,25,000/-, the respondent bank shall provide a statement of account to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter disclosing the exact amount disbursed by the bank as loan; exact amount/s repaid by the petitioner together with dates of deposit; rate of interest and amount/s of interest charged by the bank. Such statement be expressed in such terms/language as may be easy to comprehend even by a lay-man such as the petitioner.

¶15

(iv) The bank shall in the statement so supplied, itself calculate & indicate the amount/s of each installment together with the date of payments due.

¶16

(v) Thus, the balance amount so indicated by the bank shall be deposited by the petitioner through the remaining four equal quarterly installments from 05.8.2019 onwards.

¶17

(vi) If the entire amount is deposited by the petitioner as directed above, no recovery charge shall be realized from the petitioner.

¶18

(vii) In case of default of the conditions as mentioned above, the present order shall stand automatically vacated and recovery proceedings shall revive from that stage.

¶19

Order Date :- 5.4.2019 A.N. Mishra

Jitendra Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Mahendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vindesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mohd. Yusuf Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Jitendra Singh Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shakina Vs Zila Vidhik Sewa Pradhikaran and Another

M/S Siddhi Vinayak Agro Industries and 2 Others Vs Chief Manager Allahabad Bank