Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 18 (UTT)

Aman Singh v. State Bank of India

2005-02-09

RAJESH TANDON

body2005
JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rajesh Tandon, J. - Heard Sri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the recovery citation (as contained in Annexure No.2) 'dated 7.12.2004 issued by the respondent no. 2. 3. According to the petitioner, he had taken agricultural loan for purchasing a tractor of Rs. 1,42,000/- from the State Bank of India Jhaberera Branch Roorkee, District Haridwar on 21.05.1999. 4. Petitioner has submitted that he is a small farmer and due to his family problem and non payment of Sugar Cane price, the petitioner could not deposit the instalments in time to the respondent Bank. He could not repay the entire amount of loan. The details are given below: Amount Date (a) Rs. 30,500/- 21.05.1999 (b) Rs. 4,000/- 26.06.1999 (c) Rs.19,000/- 19.05.2000 (d) Rs. 20,000/- 08.03.2001 (e) Rs.25,000/- 15.02.2002 (f) RS.25,000/- 03.03.2004 5. The petitioner has till date deposited Rs. 1,23,500/- towards the loan with the Bank. 6. The petitioner has alleged that no account has been furnished by the Bank so as to enable him to come to the conclusion that the citation made is correct. Further according to him calculation of interest is wholly incorrect and no compound interest can be charged. 7. In the case of Central Bank of India v. Ravindra and others, AIR 2001 SC 3095 the Apex Court has observed: "Statement, of accounts supplied by banks to borrowers many a times do not contain particulars or details of debit entries and when written in hand are worse than medical prescriptions putting to test the eyes and with of the borrowers. Instances of unscrupulous, unfair and unhealthy dealings can be multiplied though they cannot be generalized. " 8. Therefore, the Bank authorities are directed to furnish the account to the petitioner on production of certified copy of this order. 9. So far as payment of loan amount is concerned, the petitioner is not challenging the recovery proceedings. However, the said plea is also not available to him. 10. The petitioner has prayed that he being small farmer, if the amount is realized by him through easy instalments it will serve the purpose of the Bank and will also give relief to the petitioner. who is a small farmer. However, the said plea is also not available to him. 10. The petitioner has prayed that he being small farmer, if the amount is realized by him through easy instalments it will serve the purpose of the Bank and will also give relief to the petitioner. who is a small farmer. The interest of Bank will be fully secured, if the petitioner pays the amount in eight equal four monthly instalments. 11. In view of the aforesaid, the petitioner is directed to pay the entire outstanding loan amount taken in eight four monthly instalments. The first instalment will be paid by or before 7th of March, 2005. The amount of interest will be paid in the last instalment. In case of default of any instalment, the liberty given to the petitioner to pay the loan amount in instalments shall no more be available. 12. Subject to the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.