Allowed

Akhand Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jan 2021WRIC/14807/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to a bank to accept his deposit under the One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme despite the bank's refusal based on his father's past directorship. The court directed the bank to decide the petitioner's representation. The writ petition was disposed of after issuing this direction.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent bank to decide the petitioner's representation under the OTS scheme and accept the amount offered if no legal impediment exists.

Akhand Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2021) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14807 of 2020 Petitioner :- Akhand Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Lal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kundan Rai

¶2

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Kundan Rai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 & 4.

¶4

Instant writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs :

¶5

"(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent nos. 3 & 4 to extend the benefit of OTS Scheme to the petitioner in terms of letter dated 21.9.2019 under the circular issued by respondent no. 2.

¶6

(ii) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus respondents not to realize any amount pursuant to the outstanding amount mentioned in the account statement and further to decide the objections/representation of the petitioner dated 19.5.2020 and consider the case of petitioner under the OTS Scheme.

¶7

(iii) .........."

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a recovery notice dated 21.9.2019 has been issued by the respondent bank asking the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.11,03,908/- under the one time settlement scheme and the petitioner is ready to deposit the aforesaid amount under the OTS scheme but now the bank is not accepting the same on the ground that the father of the petitioner was a Director of the Bank in the year 2001, as such, the benefit of one time settlement could not be extended to the petitioner. He further submits that a representation has been moved by the petitioner on 19.5.2020 requesting the bank to accept the amount.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondent bank fairly submits that a direction may be issued to the bank to decide the representation of the petitioner for accepting the amount offered by him under the OTS Scheme.

¶10

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the respondent bank is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 19.5.2020, annexure-9 to the writ petition, in accordance with law, expeditiously and accept the amount offered by the petitioner under the one time settlement scheme in view of the notice of the bank dated 21.9.2019, annexure-6 to the writ petition if there is no other legal impediment.

¶11

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 11.1.2021/nd

Akhand Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhand Pratap 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manish Kumar @ Deepak Dubey Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Devendra Singh Vs the Managing Director,Paschimanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and 4 Others

M/S Vaseem Enterprises and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Chandra Pal Vs State of U.P. and Another

Suman Sharma Vs Union of India and 4 Others