Disposed

Durgeshavar Prasad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Dec 2022WRIC/39770/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an attachment notice issued for alleged non-payment of a bank loan, the court permitted the petitioner to produce repayment receipts before the relevant authority. The attachment notice was held in abeyance based on the outcome of that evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to produce loan repayment receipts before respondent no. 4 within two weeks; attachment notice held in abeyance.

Durgeshavar Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39770 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Durgeshavar Prasad Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vipin Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Nigam

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

¶5

The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the attachment notice dated 11.8.2022 issued by Up-Ziladhikari, Tehsil Lalganj, District Mirzapur. The notice seeks to attach immovable property of the petitioner for alleged default in payment of loan taken by the petitioner from U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner had taken loan from the said bank in the year 2009. However, his case is that the loan was fully paid in the year 2011 and consequently, the attachment proceedings are illegal. It is also urged that no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before making attachment.

¶7

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-bank submits that recovery certificate was duly issued and the petitioner was aware of the entire proceedings.

¶8

Since the petitioner claims that the amount was fully repaid in the year 2011, therefore, we permit the petitioner to approach respondent no. 4 and produce before him receipts relating to payment of loan and in which event, he will consider and pass a speaking order taking into consideration the evidence produced before him. The impugned attachment notice will abide by the decision that would be taken by respondent no. 4 in terms of the instant order. The petitioner shall file evidence along with objections within two weeks from today before respondent no. 4, failing which, the instant order will lapse automatically and will be of no avail.

¶9

The petition stands disposed of with above directions.

¶10

Order Date :- 23.12.2022 A. V. Singh

¶11

(Jayant Banerji, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶12

Digitally signed by :- AJAY VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Durgeshavar Prasad v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgeshavar Prasad 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

Daleep Singh Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Bilal Ahamad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Jay Prakash Thekedar Vs Commissioner, Commercial Taxes and Another

Shakeel Ahmad and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Irshad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jararuddin Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others