Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1301 (RAJ)

Mahendra Singh v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur

2008-05-09

H.R.PANWAR

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order Annex.4 dated 25.05.2007 passed by the respondent No.2 and the consequential proceeding thereunder. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner is an agriculturist having agricultural land situated in Chak Nos. 21-KSP and 23-KSP, tehsil and District Hanumangarh. He was in the need of money for agricultural work and, therefore, he took the Term Loan and Cash Credit Limit Facility from the respondent No.1 in the year 1983. He was given the term loan of Rs. 61,000/- for purchase of a tractor and Rs. 6000/- for the purpose of crops, totalling Rs. 67,000/-. On petitioner's having failed to repay the loan amount, the respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the respondent No.3 on 10.06.1997 for recovery of the amount vide Annx.1. A notice was issued by the respondent No.3 to the petitioner on 20.06.1997 directing him to pay Rs. 1,98,883/- towards the principal loan amount and the interest thereon within 15 days, else the property of the petitioner shall be attached and auctioned. The petitioner failed to repay the loan and interest amount and, therefore, warrant of attachment of the property of the petitioner was issued and thereafter an auction notice was issued on 05.07.2007 (Annx.3). Ultimately, the date for auction of the land of the petitioner was fixed on 25.05.2007 (Annx.4). The petitioner came with the case that in all he had deposited Rs. 1,20,630/-. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been informed by the respondent bank as to how and in what manner the interest has been charged on the principal loan amount. It was also contended that as per the terms and conditions of the loan, the interest was agreed between the parties was 13% per annum, however the respondent bank compounded the penal interest @ 15% per annum. It has further been contended that the respondent bank has not informed how the amount has been arrived at and what rate of interest has been charged, as also that the Statement of Account has not been supplied to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Court in Idrish & Anr. It has further been contended that the respondent bank has not informed how the amount has been arrived at and what rate of interest has been charged, as also that the Statement of Account has not been supplied to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Court in Idrish & Anr. v. Assistant Collector, Nagar & Ors., 1999 WLC (Raj.) UC 345 . 5. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent bank and the bank came with the case that as on 31.07.2007, the total outstanding amount was Rs. 5,81,324.97p with effect from 01.04.1983 onwards and whatever amounts have been repaid by the petitioner, have been taken note of in the Statement of Account and after adjusting the amount so repaid by the petitioner, the outstanding loan and interest amounts comes to Rs. 5,81,324.97p as on 31.07.2007. It has been stated in the reply that the petitioner is free to deposit the outstanding amount; the deposit made by the petitioner have already been adjusted; he is well aware about the amount due against him but he has no real intention to repay the dues and since the loan was granted 25 years ago, hence the petitioner is not entitled for repayment of the loan and interest amount in easy instalments. 6. In view of the reply filed by the respondent hank, it is clear that the petitioner has been made known about the loan and interest amount due against him. The charge of interest from the petitioner by the respondent bank is as per the agreement arrived at between the parties and, therefore, the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement, therefore, no case for interference is made out. 7. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. No costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******