Petitioner challenged notice demanding payment of loan dues under P.D.R. Act. Court directed Collector to consider objection under Section 9 and stay warrant enforcement pending disposal. Writ disposed of.
Stay of warrant enforcement pending disposal; Collector directed to consider objection under Section 9 P.D.R. Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11750 of 2015
=========================================================== Jitendra Choudhary, Son of Gajendra Chaudhary, resident of Fursatpur Bairiyan, P.s. - Motihari Muffasil, District - East Champaran.
.... .... Petitioner
Versus
.... .... Respondents
=========================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ambastha, A.C. to A.A.G.-7 For the Bank : Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 29-03-2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the Bank and learned counsel for the State.
2. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the notice dated 07.02.2015 issued under the signature of the District Certificate Officer, East Champaran, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay Rs.9,21,676/- which is outstanding against the petitioner.
3 . The petitioner has taken cash credit loan from the State Bank of India for installing solar lights. As the State Government
Patna High Court CWJC No.11750 of 2015 dt.29-03-2017
2/2
has scraped the scheme, the petitioner has failed to pay back the loan amount, which compelled the Bank to initiate a proceeding under the P.D.R. Act.
4 . The petitioner does not deny the dues of the Bank, but only submits that on account of sudden decision of the State Government he caused severe loss, so he failed to pay back the loan amount. He further submits that the petitioner has already filed Objection under Section 9 of the P.D.R. Act.
5. Let the District Certificate Officer, East Champan, consider the Objection filed by the petitioner and take decision in accordance with law. If any warrant has been issued against the petitioner, the same will not be enforced till the disposal of the objection.
6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of.
(Shivaji Pandey, J)
pawan/-
| AFR/NAFR | N.A.F.R. |
|---|---|
| CAVDATE | N/A |
| Uploading Date | 31.03.2017 |
| Transmission Date |
N/A. |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to stay of enforcement of a warrant while his objection under Section 9 of the P.D.R. Act is pending.
Whether the District Certificate Officer should consider the petitioner's objection filed under Section 9 of the P.D.R. Act.
Whether the writ application challenging the notice under the P.D.R. Act should be disposed of.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Jitendra Choudhary
The State of Bihar
District Certificate Officer
District Land Acquisition Officer
The State Bank of India
Shivaji Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
