Sanjeev Kumar v. State of U.P. and 3 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner challenged a notice under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act demanding loan repayment. Petitioner submitted a reply offering installment payments. Court disposed of the petition directing the Bank to consider the installment request within three weeks.
What did the court decide?
Direction to respondent no.2 to consider petitioner's request for installment payment if a fresh representation is filed within three weeks.
What the court decided
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5402 of 2022
Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devashish Mitra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
The petitioner is aggrieved by a notice issued to him under Section 95-A of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 in relation to certain loan availed by him from Mathura Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Branch Sadabad, Hathras. The notice was issued to him to pay the balance of the principal amount as well as the interest, total sum being Rs.5 lakhs and odd or in case he has any objection to the same, furnish his reply/objection by 30th July, 2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner has submitted his reply within time on 28.7.2021 and in which he stated that he is ready to pay the entire sum in installment. It is urged that the reply given by the petitioner and the prayer made therein has not been considered by the respondent Bank so far. Learned counsel for the petitioner again submitted placing reliance on the stand taken in paras 13 and 14 of the writ petition that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the remaining amount as well as the interest in installment.
Having regard to the above stand, we dispose of the writ petition with direction to respondent no.2 to consider the said request of the petitioner in case the petitioner files a fresh representation alongwith true attested copy of the instant order within three weeks from today. The impugned recovery will abide by the decision that shall be taken by respondent no.2 on the representation of the petitioner.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's written request for installment payment of the loan dues requires consideration by the respondent Bank.
Whether the impugned notice should be modified pending the Bank's consideration of the installment request.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Sanjeev Kumar
- respondent
State Of U.P.
- respondent
Respondent no.2
- respondent
Mathura Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd.
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Allahabad HC
- Decided on
- · March
- Registered
- Case no.
- WRIC/5402/2022
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court