Disposed

Prashant Kumar Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Jul 2022WRIC/17298/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a writ petition challenging a bank's possession notice. With party consent, the petitioners were directed to repay the loan principal and interest in eight installments. Non-compliance would revive recovery proceedings.

What did the court decide?

petition disposed of with terms to repay loan principal and interest in eight installments; recovery proceedings to revive only in case of default.

Prashant Kumar Singh and 2 Others Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17298 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Shanker Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Agrawal

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Jitendra Shanker Pandey learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Lakshmi Kant Mishra learned counsel for the respondent Bank and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

Challenge has been made to the Possession Notice dated 05.8.2021.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father Sri Shamsher Bahadur Singh had availed agricultural loan of Rs. 9,00,000/- from the respondent bank. Unfortunately, faced with financial distress, default came to be committed in repayment of the loan. At present, the bank is claiming Rs. 13,30,605/- as on 20.6.2022 to be due together with due interest and other charges. In the first place, it has been submitted that the said Shamsher Bahadur Singh died on 03.5.2018 yet recovery has been issued and is being pursued in his name. The same is nonest. At the same time, the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the deceased Shamsher Bahadur Singh further claim bona fides by stating that they are ready and willing to repay the bank loan, subject to latitude of time being granted. Learned counsel for the bank has agreed to the same.

¶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 petitioners may deposit the entire amount of Rs. 13,30,605/- together with due interest in eight installments.

¶10

(ii) The first installment of Rs. 1,30,605/- shall be paid on or before 31 August 2022.

¶11

(iii) Upon deposit of Rs. 1,30,605 /- by the petitioner, the respondent - Bank shall immediately communicate to the petitioner the exact amount being claimed from him including interest computation up to 31 January 2024 (on reducing balance).

¶12

(iv) Petitioner shall thereafter deposit the remaining amount in six quarterly installment of Rs. 2,00,000 /- each shall be paid on or before 30 November 2022, 28 February 2023, 31 May 2023, 31 August 2023, 30 November 2023 and 29 February 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 31 May 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 :- 7.7.2022 Faraz

¶17

Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.07.08 10:09:10 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Prashant Kumar Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Kumar Singh and 2 Others 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

M/S Woodland Timber Store Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow.

Vilokpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Basudeo Steel Furnitures Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow

Mohit Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Seema Rani Vs State Election Officer and 12 Others