Allowed

Rajeev Kumar Singh v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 May 2022WRIC/13277/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a bank's demand notice for an agricultural loan. It allowed the petitioner to repay the full dues in installments. Complying with the order bars further charges; default revives recovery proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to deposit total liability of Rs. 7,13,024/- plus interest in ten installments; bank barred from recovering further charges if terms are met.

Rajeev Kumar Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13277 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.L. Varma,Manju Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amrish Sahai

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Ms. Manju Verma learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.B. Singh learned counsel holding brief of Sri Amrish Sahai learned counsel for the respondent Bank and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

Challenge has been made to the demand notice dated 12.4.2022 issued by the respondent Bank. Against a loan of Rs.2,90,000/- the bank is claiming Rs. 7,13,024/- to be due against the petitioner together with due interest and other charges.

¶7

At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner states that Agricultural loan of Rs. 2,90,000/- has been availed by the petitioner for agricultural purposes. Owing to unforeseen circumstances, the petitioner could not repay the debt. In any case the petitioner is desirous of liquidating his entire liability subject to latitude of time being granted.

¶8

In such circumstances, no useful purpose may be served in keeping the petition pending or for calling counter affidavit. Accordingly the present petition is disposed of with the consent of parties on the following terms:

¶9

(i). The petitioner may deposit the entire amount of Rs. 7,13,024/- together with due interest in ten installments.

¶10

(ii) The first installment of Rs. 1,13,024/- shall be paid on or before 30 June 2022.

¶11

(iii) Upon deposit of Rs. 1,13,024 /- by the petitioner, the respondent - Bank shall immediately communicate to the

¶12

petitioner the exact amount being claimed from him including interest computation up to 31 May 2024 (on reducing balance). (iv) Petitioner shall thereafter deposit the remaining amount in eight equal quarterly installment of Rs. 75,000 /- each shall be paid on or before 30 September 2022, 31 December 2022, 31 March 2023, 30 June 2023, 30 September 2023, 31 December 2023, 31 March 2024 and 30 June 2024 respectively. The amount of interest (if any) being claimed by the respondent - Bank may be paid, by way of last installment, on or before 30 September 2024.

¶13

(v) Any amount that may have been deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the impugned demand notice, may be adjusted against the deposit to be made under this order.

¶14

Subject to the petitioner complying with all the terms of this order, no further amount may be charged by the bank and no amount shall become due by way of penalty or recovery charges as the entire amount would have been paid in compliance of directions issued under Article 226 of the Constitution.

¶15

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.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.5.2022 Faraz

¶17

Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.05.23 10:23:58 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajeev Kumar Singh v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaihind Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Digvijay Chaudhary (Minor) Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nadeem Khan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

U.P. State Industrial Development Authority Vs Navneet Bansal and 8 Others

U.P. State Insustrial Development Authority Vs Navneet Bansal and 8 Others

Rambachan Vs State of U P and 3 Others