Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 576 (ALL)

Dharmendra Kumar Misra v. V. Bank of Baroda

2004-03-16

P.K.CHATTERJI, U.K.DHAON

body2004
( 1 ) HEARD Sri R. S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties no. 2 and 3. ( 2 ) NONE has put in appearance on behalf of the Bank of Baroda and no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bank. ( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for the loan to the Bank for purchase of Mahindra Jeep and thereafter the Bank sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 1. 20 lacs on 13. 5. 1991. The petitioner was required to repay the loan within three years with interest, as the petitioner failed to pay the dues of the Bank, the recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the citation dated 9. 2. 1995, the petitioner has approached this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the loan was granted to the petitioner for commercial purpose and as such the Bank has no authority under the law to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Full bench decision of this Court reported in 2002 (20) L. C. D. page 472, smt. Sharda Devi v. State of U. P. and others and the decision of the honble Supreme Court reported in 2003 (1) Bank C. L. R. page 422 (S. C), m/s. Unique Butyle Tube Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. U. P. Finance Corporation and others. ( 4 ) THE learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 submits that there is no illegality in the impugned citation and the petitioner was under an obligation to pay the dues of the bank. He further submits that the case laws cited by the petitioner are not applicable to the present case. ( 5 ) WE have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. A loan of Rs. 1. 20 lacs was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner by the Bank on 13. 5. 1991 and the petitioner was required to repay the dues of the Bank within three years, as the petitioner failed to repay the loan within the time specified, the impugned recovery notice for Rs. 93,221/- was issued. A loan of Rs. 1. 20 lacs was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner by the Bank on 13. 5. 1991 and the petitioner was required to repay the dues of the Bank within three years, as the petitioner failed to repay the loan within the time specified, the impugned recovery notice for Rs. 93,221/- was issued. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was a commercial loan cannot be accepted. The loan was granted to the petitioner for purchase of the vehicle. Keeping in view that there should be development in the country, the Banks are providing loan facilities to the persons who are willing to purchase the vehicles and if such loan is treated as commercial loan, it would be difficult for the Bank to recover the same by filing civil suit, which takes years and years to decide. The money of the Bank and financial institution is public money and it should be kept in circulation otherwise the Bank and depositors will suffer. We are of the opinion that there is no equity in favour of the petitioner at present as the recovery proceedings in pursuance of the citation was stayed by this Court on 28. 8. 1995 and till date the petitioner has enjoyed the money. It was the duty of the petitioner to pay the dues of the Bank within the time specified. The case laws cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Bank loan is public money, which can be recovered as land revenue. ( 6 ) THE writ petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, is hereby discharged. It will be open for the opposite parties to recover the amount from the petitioner forthwith. . .