Court No. - 39
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 164 of 2018 Appellant :- Daya Ram Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Its Secretary And Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Ashok Kumar,Niranjan Lal Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Nigam
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
This Special Appeal has been filed under Chapter VIII, Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules against the judgment and order dated 23 January 2018 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing the notice dated 28 September 2017 issued by the respondent-U.P. Sahkari Gramin Vikas Bank Limited, Agra for payment of the balance amount of Rs.3,25,000/- against loan bearing No.JD-12/25 taken for dairy purpose, has been dismissed.
It transpires from the records of the writ petition that the petitioner had taken two loans from the respondent-Bank. The first loan bearing No.JD-12/25 for Rs.70,000/- was for dairy purpose and the second loan bearing No.JD-12/26 for Rs.1 lac was for tent business. A notice dated 5 February 2016 was issued by the respondent-Bank for recovery of the loan against JD-12/26 that was for tent business. The petitioner had filed Writ-C No.30371 of 2016 to assail the said notice but, in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was ready to deposit the amount in installments, the writ petition was disposed of on 6 July 2016 giving liberty to the petitioner to deposit the amount in installments. It is stated that the amount was subsequently deposited and the loan account was closed on 20 July 2016.
The notice dated 28 September 2017 that was challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition out of which the present Special Appeal arises was in regard to the loan bearing no.JD-12/25 which the petitioner had taken for dairy purpose. This loan was for Rs.70,000/-. The learned Judge has not accepted the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had deposited the loan amount towards both the loans.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the amount that was deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the directions issued by the Court on 6 July 2016 in the earlier Writ Petition No.30371 of 2016 actually related to both the loans and, therefore, the respondent-Bank could not have issued a fresh notice dated 28 September 2017 for recovery of the amount.
Sri Manoj Nigam, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has, however, stated that the amount that was deposited by the petitioner was in regard to the loan bearing No.JD-12/26 which was for tent purpose. This account was closed on 20 July 2016. The subsequent notice dated 28 September 2017 was for recovery of the loan that had been taken for dairy purpose and which bore No.JD-12/25.
We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.
It is not possible to accept the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. The writ petition mentions about loan of Rs.75,000/- but this, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, is incorrect as the loan amount was for Rs.70,000/-. This loan, which bore no.JD-12/25, was taken for dairy purpose.
The notice dated 5 February 2016 that was issued to the petitioner was in regard to the loan of Rs.1 lac that was taken for the purpose of tent business and which bore no.JD-12/26 as is clear from a perusal of the notice. It is this notice that was assailed by the petitioner in the earlier Writ Petition No.30371 of 2016 filed by him and pursuant to the direction issued by the Court, the petitioner deposited the entire amount and the account was closed on 20 July 2016.
The subsequent notice dated 28 September 2017 that was under challenge in Writ-C No.60032 of 2017, which has given rise to this Special Appeal, is with regard to a separate loan bearing No.JD-12/26.
The petitioner, therefore, is not correct in asserting that the amount that was deposited by him pursuant to the direction given by the Court in the earlier Writ Petition No.30371 of 2016 filed by him, liquidated both the loans.
There is, therefore, no infirmity in the impugned judgment which may call for interference by the Court.
The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 SK (Dilip Gupta, J.) (Jayant Banerji, J.)