Disposed

Shubham Goyal v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC2 Mar 2023WPMS/257/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In W.P. 2/5/7/2023, a retired partner challenged a recovery certificate. The Court, noting a dispute on whether the loan was a commercial loan or under a State Sponsored Scheme, disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to make a representation to the Collector.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make representation to the Collector within one week; Collector to pass order within three weeks; no coercive action for four weeks.

SL. No	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
			W PMS 2 5 7 / 2 0 2 3 Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel, for the State/ respondents no. 1 and 2. Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, Advocate, for the respondent no. 3. According to petitioner, he was a partner in a partnership firm in the name and style of M/ s Om Enterprises. The said firm took a loan of rupees seven lakhs, in the form of cash credit limit, from Bank of India, Ballupur Chowk Branch, Dehradun. Since the partnership firm could not repay the loan, therefore, a recovery certificate was issued to the Collector for recovery of outstanding dues. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the recovery citation issued by Tehsildar, Dehradun, pursuant to the recovery certificate issued by the bank. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that petitioner retired from the partnership firm on 1.4.2021, therefore, he is not liable to pay the dues of the bank. It is further contended that since the cash credit limit taken by the partnership firm is in the form of commercial loan, therefore, bank cannot invoke provisions of U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of dues) Act, 1972 and, only a loan advanced under State Sponsored Scheme can be recovered as arrears of land revenue.

SL.
No

Date

Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions and
Registrar’s order
with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

W PMS 2 5 7 / 2 0 2 3
Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.
Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate, for
the petitioner.
Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel,
for the State/ respondents no. 1 and 2.
Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, Advocate, for
the respondent no. 3.
According to petitioner, he was a
partner in a partnership firm in the name
and style of M/ s Om Enterprises. The said
firm took a loan of rupees seven lakhs, in
the form of cash credit limit, from Bank of
India, Ballupur Chowk Branch, Dehradun.
Since the partnership firm could not repay
the loan, therefore, a recovery certificate
was issued to the Collector for recovery of
outstanding dues. In this writ petition,
petitioner
has
challenged
the
recovery
citation issued by Tehsildar, Dehradun,
pursuant to the recovery certificate issued
by the bank.
It is contended by learned Counsel
for the petitioner that petitioner retired from
the partnership firm on 1.4.2021, therefore,
he is not liable to pay the dues of the bank.
It is further contended that since the cash
credit limit taken by the partnership firm is
in the form of commercial loan, therefore,
bank cannot invoke provisions of U.P. Public
Moneys (Recovery of dues) Act, 1972 and,
only
a
loan
advanced
under
State
Sponsored Scheme can be recovered as
arrears of land revenue.

Learned Counsel for the respondent
bank, however, submits that merely because petitioner has retired from
partnership firm, will not absolve the petitioner from the responsibility of repaying the loan, as he was a partner of the said firm. Learned Counsel further contended that loan was taken under Pradhanmatri Mudra Yojna and this fact is admitted to the petitioner as he has brought on record certain documents which indicate that the said loan was sanctioned under the State Sponsored Scheme and, therefore, contention of the petitioner that the loan is purely a commercial loan cannot be accepted. Since there is a dispute as to whether the loan was sanctioned to the partnership firm under the State Sponsored Scheme or not, therefore, this Court thinks it just and proper to relegate the petitioner to the Collector. It shall be open to the petitioner to make a representation to the Collector raising all contentions, as have been raised before this Court. If petitioner makes such representation within one week from today, then Collector shall pass appropriate order, after hearing the petitioner and the respondent bank, within next three weeks. For a period of four weeks, no coercive action shall be taken qua the petitioner only. Writ petition stands disposed of. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 2 .3 .2 0 2 3 Pr

Learned Counsel for the respondent

bank,
however,
submits
that
merely
because
petitioner
has
retired
from

partnership
firm,
will
not
absolve
the
petitioner
from
the
responsibility
of
repaying the loan, as he was a partner of
the said firm. Learned Counsel further
contended
that
loan
was
taken
under
Pradhanmatri Mudra Yojna and this fact is
admitted to the petitioner as he has brought
on record certain documents which indicate
that the said loan was sanctioned under the
State Sponsored Scheme and, therefore,
contention of the petitioner that the loan is
purely
a
commercial
loan
cannot
be
accepted.
Since there is a dispute as to
whether the loan was sanctioned to the
partnership firm under the State Sponsored
Scheme or not, therefore, this Court thinks
it just and proper to relegate the petitioner
to the Collector.
It shall be open to the petitioner to
make a representation to the Collector
raising all contentions, as have been raised
before this Court. If petitioner makes such
representation within one week from today,
then Collector shall pass appropriate order,
after
hearing
the
petitioner
and
the
respondent bank, within next three weeks.
For a period of four weeks, no
coercive action shall be taken qua the
petitioner only.
Writ petition stands disposed of.
( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.)
2 .3 .2 0 2 3
Pr

Shubham Goyal v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Goyal v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Aarmen Naaz Vs Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited

Kakuli Mandal Vs Regional Passport Office Dehradun

Beehive Ayurved Medical College and Hospital Vs State of Uttarakhand

Dr. Chaitali Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary

Salman Qureshi Gstin Vs Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax Commissionerate Dehradun

Surendra Singh Rawat Gstin Vs Commissioner Central Goods and Service Tax Commissionerate Dehradun