Quashed

Vinay Kumar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad HC14 Jan 2020WRIC/44109/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition challenging the legality of a second Recovery Certificate issued by a Bank against petitioners. The petitioners demonstrated that their loan, extending to Rs. 75,474/-, was fully settled through prior deposits and auction proceeds of their tractor and land. The Court held the duplicate Recovery Certificate patently illegal and arbitrary.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Recovery Certificate dated 03.11.1997 and subsequent proceedings therein were quashed.

Vinay Kumar Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and… — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 44109 of 1997

¶4

Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Singh And Another Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.C. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Tarun Varma

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Narain Dutt Shukla, Advocate holding brief of Sri R.C. Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents-1 and 2. None has appeared on behalf of respondent-3 Bank though name of Sri Tarun Varma, Advocate is shown in the cause list as Bank's counsel.

¶7

Despite time having been granted, respondents have not chosen to file any counter affidavit though 22 years have passed, therefore, I do not find any reason to defer the matter further and hence proceed to decide after hearing learned counsel for petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for respondents- 1 and 2 as also on the basis of material available on record.

¶8

It is contended that a loan of Rs.67,000/- was sanctioned to petitioners' father by Respondent-Bank for purchase of Tractor at the rate of 12.5 per cent per annum on 10.10.1982. Petitioners' father purchased HMT Tractor and thereafter, he deposited certain amounts i.e. Rs.15,000/- on 30.04.1986 and Rs.14,000/- in 1987 towards settlement of bank loan. Since petitioners' father could not deposit amount of loan regularly due to natural calamities causing damages to crop and Recovery Certificate was issued in January, 1990 for recovery of Rs.75,474/- and in this regard, Citation dated 12.02.1990 was issued directing petitioners to deposit aforesaid amount. Pursuant whereto, petitioners had deposited following amount with Collection Amin :

¶9

¶10

S.No.	Receipt No.	Date	Amount
1.	17099	14.08.1990	Rs.25,000/-
2.	10360	31.08.1990	Rs.4,950/-
3.	87904	31.08.1990	Rs.1,992/-
4.	12884	31.08.1990	Rs.1,000/-
5.	10360	16.09.1990	Rs.32,000/-
6.	10360	16.09.1990	Rs.19,200/-
		Total	Rs.84,142/-

¶11

It is further stated in para-8 read with para-10 of the writ petition that Tractor was sold for Rs.32,000/- in auction held on 16.09.1990 and petitioners' land was also sold for Rs.19,200/- on 16.09.1990, thus, a total sum of Rs.84,142/- was recovered from petitioners against recovery of Rs.75,474/-. Revenue Authorities remitted Rs.76,475/- to Bank and adjusted Rs.7667/- towards recovery charges. Again, Bank has issued Recovery Certificate of the same amount which is patently arbitrary and illegal. Necessary averments in this regard have been made in paras- 7 to 14 which reproduced as under:-

¶12

“7. That the Tehsildar Tehsil Aonla, Distt. Bareilly issued Citation dated 12.2.1990 requiring the petitioners to pay Rs.75,474/- on or before 19.2.1990. Photostat copy of the Citation dt. 12.2.1990 is being annexed hereto and marked as Annexure No.2 to this writ petition.

¶13

That the petitioners deposited following amount with the Collection Amin:

¶14

Amount	Date	Receipt No.
Rs.25,000/-	14.8.1990	17099
Rs.4,950/-	31.8.1990	10360
Rs.1,992/-	31.8.1990	87904
Rs.1,000/-	31.8.1990	12884
Rs.32,000/-	16.9.1990	10360
Rs.19,200/-	16.9.1990	10360

¶15

Rs.84,142/- Total

¶16

¶17

That out of aforesaid deposit of Rs.84,142/- with Collection Amin a sum of Rs.76,475/- was deposited in the account of the bank and a sum of Rs.7667/- was adjusted against the recovery charges @ Rs.10%.

¶18

That it is relevant to mention here that petitioners tractor was attached and ultimately sold in auction for Rs. 32,000/-on 16.09.1990 in favour of one Ram Kumar Singh son of Mahabir Singh, Resident of Village and Post Akha Distt. Bareilly.

¶19

That it is also relevant to mention here that petitioners' agricultural plots were also attached on 1.8.1990 and sale proclamation was issued on 13.8.1990 to auction the attached plots on 14.9.1990.

¶20

That pursuant to the Sale proclamation dt. 13.8.1990 petitioners' plots were put to auction. One Dharam Das son of Ram Charan and Jagan Lal son of Sita Ram R/o Village and Post Akha offerred highest bid of Rs.19,000/- which was accepted and confirmed in their favour.

¶21

That as stated earlier petitioners had deposited Rs.29,000/with the Bank and Rs.84,000/- with the Tehsil authorities. Another sum of Rs.32,000/- and Rs.19,000/- was recovered by auctioning petitioners' agricultural plots and Tractor. Benefit to the tune of Rs.10,000/- was given to the petitioners under Debt Relief Scheme. Thus, a sum of Rs.1,74,000/- in all has been realized from the petitioners in the said recovery proceedings against Prinicipal amount of Rs.67,000/- which was auctioned to the petitioners' father.

¶22

That it is categorically stated that entire amount of the loan has been satisfied and that not a single penny is outstanding against the petitioners. It is stated that a sum of Rs.75,000/- was due upto 12.2.1990 and said amount was sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The petitioners deposited Rs.84,000/with the Collection Amin and Rs.32,000/-and Rs.19,000/- were also recovered by auctioning petitioners' Tractor and Agricultural plots. Thus, a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- has been recovered by the Tehsil Authorities as against Rs.75,475/-. Petitioners' Tractor and agricultural land were illegally auctioned despite of the fact that the amount sought to be recovered by the Tehsil Authorities was already been satisfied.” 5. Since aforesaid averments are uncontroverted and claims of

¶23

¶24

petitioners are very clear that they had earlier deposited entire loan amount with Bank in respect whereto Recovery Certificate was issued in January, 1990 and no amount is payable, therefore, second Recovery Certificate for the said amount is patently illegal.

¶25

In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned Recovery Certificate dated 03.11.1997 as well as subsequent proceedings therein are hereby quashed.

¶26

Order Date :- 14.1.2020 Siddhant Sahu

Vinay Kumar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Kumar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and 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

Mohd. Alim and Others Vs Tahir Husain

Dilip Jain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Amarjeet Vs State of U.P.

Kullu and Another Vs the Chief Revenue Oficer and Another

Murari Lal and Ors. Vs the Addl. Commissioner Agra Div. and Ors.

Shri Narain Singh Vs v-a.D.J. Mirzapur and Others