Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43152 of 2010 Petitioner :- Madan Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,P.K. Tripathi Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh,J.
Hon’ble Rajesh Chandra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D. Vaish, learned counsel
appears for the Bank and learned Standing Counsel.
Challenge in this petition is recovery proceeding by which a particular amount
is sought to be recovered from the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has
made statement at the bar that this is the first writ petition against the recovery
proceeding and this fact has also been stated in the writ petition. Submission
is that if reasonable time is allowed to pay the amount sought to be recovered,
petitioner may be able to pay the same and irreparable injury on account of
arrest and auction of property may be avoided.
To the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for Bank submits that intention of
the respondent bank has been never to cause any irreparable injury to the
loanee rather the loan amount was advanced with the purpose to improve the
petitioner’s future prospects and thus if for justifiable reason the amount in
terms of the agreement has not been paid and now petitioner has bonafide
intention to pay the amount within a reasonable time then if that liberty is
given, it will serve the interest of both sides i.e. petitioner may be saved from
the riggers of coercive process i.e. arrest, auction of the properties and at the
same time respondent bank will get its full amount with interest. Thus for
grant of reasonable time, if that is to advance justice, respondents may not
have any objection.
In view of aforesaid, this Court feels in the ends of justice that amount sought
to be recovered be permitted to be deposited.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of with the following directions :
i) Petitioner is to deposit an amount of Rs. 40,000/- directly in the concerned
bank within a period of one month from today to show bonafide on his part.
ii) If petitioner deposits the above amount within the time so allowed then he
is permitted to deposit the remaining amount directly in concerned Bank in
three quarterly installments. In calculating the arrears the amount (if any)
already paid will be adjusted.
iii) The first installment may be deposited by 31st October, 2010, second
installment by 31st January, 2011, third by 30th April, 2011. These deposits
may be made before the branch of the Bank from where the loan was taken. In
case installments are deposited in the Bank then only half of the recovery
charges will be recovered from the petitioner.
iv) During period of deposit the recovery proceedings will be kept in
abeyance. In case petitioners defaults in depositing any of the installments
within the above stipulated time, it will be open to the respondents to start
recovery proceedings again by taking coercive process at once.
v) Petitioner may file an application for supply of statement of account
alongwith duly stamped self addressed envelope. In case any such application
is filed, the concerned branch of the Bank will give the same to the petitioner
after deposit of first instalment within fifteen days.
vi) This order will not affect any auction if it has already taken place. In that
event the petitioner may take appropriate legal proceedings to set aside the
auction under U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and Rules ,1952 or file a suit in
accordance with law.
vii) It is clarified that this order will not be operative and will not come in
way of recovery process in any manner, if any other writ petition has been
filed before this Court against the recovery proceeding for the loan amount.
viii) If any fact given from the side of the petitioners are found to be incorrect
by the bank authorities, it will be open for them to move an application for
modification/recall of the order.
With the aforesaid direction, writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.7.2010
Sunil Kr Tiwari
