Disposed

Vivek Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2024WRIC/8045/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction for consideration of a moral distress/OTS relief regarding a non-performing agricultural loan. The court disposed of the petition by consent without merits, directing the bank to consider the application expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Bank authority to consider the petitioner's representation for OTS Scheme within a period of two weeks expeditiously.

Vivek Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:64745

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8045 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Vivek Singh

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sharad Kumar Shukla

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Bank.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has taken agricultural KCC loan for the purpose of running Poultry Farm on 13.11.2016 amounting to Rs.15,00,000/-. He was continuously payed the EMIs, but due to certain unforseen circumstances he could not repay the outstanding amount of loan and accordingly the said loan amount was declared Non Performing Asset in the year 2019 and the respondent-Bank started recovery proceedings against petitioner.

¶9

It is submitted that on account of two loans taken by the petitioner, the outstanding amount is more than Rs. 34,00,000/as on 31.12.2019.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is ready and willing to pay entire outstanding loan amount to the respondent-Bank in installments.

¶11

At this stage it is has been fairly submitted by learned counsel for the respondent-Bank that OTS Scheme is in existence and in case petitioner moved appropriate application, same can be considered by the respondent-Bank and the petitioner can be granted benefit of the same.

¶12

It is at this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner confines his prayer for a suitable direction to respondent-bank to consider his grievance for consideration of the OTS Scheme.

¶13

Learned counsel for respondent does not object to the prayer

¶14

made by learned counsel for petitioner.

¶15

Accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties and without entering into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh representation within one week from today before respondent No. 5/Manager, Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank, Branch Sahabganj, District - Pratapgarh/competent authority and on receipt of the said application the said authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, say within a period of two weeks thereafter and communicate his decision to the petitioner.

¶16

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 19.9.2024 Ravi/

¶18

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vivek Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajendra Prasad Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Labour Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Kedar Ram Pno. 853010010 vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Rohit Hassa and 2 Others vs Union of India Thru. Ncb, Lucknow

Mohd. Sartaj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue and 7 Others

Ram Tej Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Revenue Deptt. Civil Secy. Lko. U.P. and 8 Others

Shivanshu Gupta Vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Education,Deptt. of Higher Education, Lko. and Another