Lalta Prasad vs Distt. Magistrate,Distt.Barabanki and 3 Others

Heard Shri Lalla Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondentBank/ and perused the material available on record.

¶12

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

¶13

"(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of 'Certiorari' to quash the property attachment order dated 31.12.2024 passed by the opposite party no.2 contained as Annexure No.1.

¶14

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of 'Mandamus' commanding the opposite parties not to take any coercive action against the petitioner regarding depositing the loan amount.

¶15

(III) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of 'Mandamus' commanding the opposite parties to receive the remaining balance loan amount in easy installments."

¶16

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had taken an agricultural loan of Rs. 1,14,000/- on Kisan Credit Card in the year 2014 from the respondent No. 2 i.e. Uttar Pradesh Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Limited, Branch Ram Nagar, District Barabanki. As the petitioner could not deposit the outstanding amount of loan, an attachment order dated 31.12.2024 was passed by the respondentbank against the petitioner. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the said order of attachment was passed without giving any prior notice to him.

¶17

Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that due to serious financial constraints, the petitioner could not repay the loan amount, but now he is willing to repay the entire amount of loan in easy installments.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-Bank on the basis of instructions submits that the Bank is ready to accept the

¶19

WRIC No. 1762 of 2026

¶20

2

¶21

willingness of the petitioner to repay the outstanding amount of loan in easy installments. He has informed the Court that the amount due against the petitioner is Rs.4,11,239/- as on 21.02.2026.

¶22

Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶23

(i) The petitioner shall deposits Rs.1,00,000/- within one month from today, and on deposit of the said amount, no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned attachment order dated 31.12.2024 passed by the respondent-Bank against the petitioner.

¶24

(ii) Upon deposit of the aforesaid amount, the Bank shall calculate the dues against the petitioner, after adjusting the amount already paid and shall furnish the statement of the account to the petitioner and the petitioner shall pay the remaining outstanding amount in eight equal quarterly installments, commencing from 01.06.2026 and the last installment shall contain interest and all the outstanding amount due against the petitioner.

¶25

It is made clear that in case the petitioner violates any of the aforesaid conditions, the respondent-Bank shall be at liberty to initiate recovery proceedings in accordance with law.

¶26

It is open for the concerned Bank to extend the benefit of loan waiver scheme, if any, to the petitioner, as per the relevant policy of the respondent-Bank.

¶27

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this petition is disposed of.

¶28

(Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.)

¶29

March 16, 2026 Manoj K.

¶30

Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lalta Prasad v. Distt. Magistrate,Distt.Barabanki and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalta Prasad v. Distt. Magistrate,Distt.Barabanki and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramveer Singh Tomer vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Stamp and Registration Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Shobha Tripathi vs Pradeep Kumar

Raj Krishna Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Signatory Jitendra Singh vs Presidency Infraheights Private Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory

Kalawati vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Vichitra Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko and 2 Others

Sri Chitrgupt Inter College Gonda Thru. Manager Viswanesh Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education U.P. Lko. and 7 Others