Disposed

Kamla Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 May 2019WRIC/15793/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was filed by a guarantor seeking direction to bank to return recovered amount and withdraw pension. The High Court disposed of the petition without adjudicating merits, directing the petitioner to approach the bank for grievance redressal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Respondent No. 3 to ventilate grievances; writ petition disposed without merits.

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

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15793 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Kamla Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Chaube Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjai Singh,Satish Chaturvedi

¶4

Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following reliefs;

¶6

"i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 3 to return the recover amount with interest of Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 1,600/- on 24.12.2018 from the petitioner Saving/Pension account No. 0540000102483005 to adjust the outstanding pension loan amount of one Smt. Ratna Prabha bearing loan account no. 054000PD00000528.

¶7

ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents banks to complete the formalities to withdrawn the petitioner pension from the bank of Respondent No.4."

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sister of the petitioner has taken certain loan from the Bank. He further submits that for committing default in payment of the loan, recovery proceedings were initiated by the Bank. Petitioner appears to be the guarantor in the matter and has given guarantee with respect to the loan granted to his sister. Now, the

¶9

outstanding amount due against the sister of the petitioner is being recovered from the petitioner as he had given guarantee for loan.

¶10

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that matter has been settled between sister of the petitioner and the Bank on the basis that money is being received by the Bank from his sister. In view of the above, the Bank cannot recover any amount from the petitioner.

¶11

Learned counsel for the Bank has stated that no such settlement has been entered into between the sister of the petitioner and the Bank.

¶12

Heard Sri Om Prakash Chaube, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Uma Dutta Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjai Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3, Sri P.B. Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and perused the record.

¶13

Be that as it may, it will be appropriate for the petitioner to file appropriate application before the respondent no. 3 ventilating his grievances. In case, any such application is filed, we expect that respondent no. 3 shall look into the matter and

¶14

pass appropriate order on application of the petitioner.

¶15

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands finally disposed of.

¶16

It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, the respondent no. 3 shall take decision on merit, in accordance with law.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.5.2019 SR

Kamla Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamla Singh 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

Faya Nath Mali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ebad Ahmad Khan Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Tara Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rameshwar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Mothasim Alvi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Praveen Kumar Jain Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others