Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2023 (ALL)

Abdul Hai v. State of U. P. and Others

2010-07-12

RAJIV SHARMA

body2010
Hon’ble Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.2. The petitioner has taken a loan from Central Bank of India, Sultanpur for a sum of Rs.70,000/- for purchase of Swaraj Tractor on 28.7.1984 and as the loan could not be repaid as per terms and conditions of the agreement arrived at between the parties, recovery proceedings were initiated by issuing a recovery certificate for Rs.82,000/- in the year 1988. After initiation of recovery proceedings, certain amount has been paid by the petitioner, but the entire dues, admittedly, are not cleared and as such, custody of the tractor-cum-trolley of the petitioner was taken by the Tehsildar on 19.9.1990. On the same day, auction took place, which was confirmed on 25.9.1990 and the possession of the Tractor was given to Manvendra Pratap Singh, whereas trolley was given to Mahendra Pratap Singh on payment of Rs.31,800/- respectively.3. Being aggrieved by the said auction, the petitioner has preferred Writ Petition No. 10397 (MS) of 1990 and vide order dated 11.10.1990, this Court while issuing notices to the opposite parties 5 to 7 provided that the auction of sale of the cultivator, if not already confirmed, shall not be confirmed.4. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the Bank, wherein the factum of outstanding amount and recovery proceedings was not disputed. Further it was also mentioned that the sale has been confirmed and the sale proceeds has also been deposited in the account of the petitioner in the Bank.5. On perusal of the order sheet, it reflects that by means of the order dated 26.11.1990, this Court provided that opposite party nos.6 and 7 shall not transfer the tractor and the trolley which they have purchased in the auction and custody of which has also been delivered to them.6. During pendency of instant writ petition, as the amount remained outstanding, the land which had been mortgaged, was also put to auction and as such, the petitioner has preferred another Writ Petition No. 554 (MS) of 1991. This Court, vide order dated 8.2.1991, directed for listing of the case alongwith Writ Petition No.10397 (MS) of 1990. Further, it was provided that in case, the petitioners deposit Rs.8,000/- with the opposite party No.4 within a month, the recovery proceedings including auction shall remain stayed. The question of payment of any further amount, if any, shall be considered on the next date of listing.7. Further, it was provided that in case, the petitioners deposit Rs.8,000/- with the opposite party No.4 within a month, the recovery proceedings including auction shall remain stayed. The question of payment of any further amount, if any, shall be considered on the next date of listing.7. On 2.7.1992, this Court passed the following order:-“The service on opposite parties 6 and 7 is already deemed to be sufficient. Nobody has put in appearance on their behalf. Opposite party No.5 (Central Bank of India) has filed a copy of the statement of account which indicates that only a sum of Rs.9358.6p. is outstanding against the petitioner. In case the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.9358.96 in the Central Bank of India within two weeks, the opposite parties 6 and 7 shall return the tractory and trolley to the Bank which shall return it at the cost of the petitioner till 10th March, 1992. If the petitioner has already deposited Rs.8,000/- in writ petition No. 554 (MS) of 1991, the Bank shall credit for the amount to the petitioner.”8. Since the opposite parties 6 and 7 have not obeyed the Court’s Order dated 27.1.1992, notice has been issued to show-cause why action be not taken against them for violating the Court’s Order and for initiating the proceedings against them under the Contempt of Courts Act. As they did not turn up, bailable warrants were issued. Even then, they had not appeared before this Court. Under the compelling circumstances, non-bailable warrants were issued against them vide order dated 29.4.1994. Though they gave an undertaking to return the Tractor before 19.5.1994 positively, yet they did not fulfil to their commitment. As they deliberately and wilfully defied the orders passed by this Court, a charge was framed for committing contempt of Court vide order dated 22.9.1997.9. Thereafter, vide order dated 30.9.1997, Manvendra Pratap Singh and Mahendra Prasad Yadav appeared before this Court. The said order is as under:-“In compliance of the order dated 22.9.1997, Sri Manvendra Pratap Singh and Mahendra Prasad Yadav appeared before this Court. Bank drafts of Rupees Eighty Thousand have also been filed alongwith an application. Same are accepted. The Additional Registrar is directed to encash the said bank drafts and pay the said amount to the petitioner on his furnishing security for the said amount other than cash and bank guarantee. The personal appearance of aforesaid persons is dispensed with. Bank drafts of Rupees Eighty Thousand have also been filed alongwith an application. Same are accepted. The Additional Registrar is directed to encash the said bank drafts and pay the said amount to the petitioner on his furnishing security for the said amount other than cash and bank guarantee. The personal appearance of aforesaid persons is dispensed with. List this case for further orders on 21st October, 1997. ....”10. During the course of arguments, it has been informed by the parties that as the petitioner did not furnish any guarantee, Rs.80,000/- is still lying in this Court.11. Admittedly, the tractor-cum-trolley was auctioned, though not in accordance with the provisions of U. P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 and Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, in the year 1990. As stated above, Rs.80,000/- [vide Bank Draft No.079575 for Rs.50,000/- and No. 079576 for Rs.30,000/-] which was deposited by the opposite party nos.6 and 7 is lying in this Court. Further, the tractor-cum-trolley is in the custody of opposite party nos.6 and 7. As the petitioner has not enjoyed the fruits since the date of auction, i.e. 19.9.1990 and he is running from pillar to post, interest of justice would suffice, if the amount of Rs.80,000/- lying in this Court is paid to him. Even otherwise, the cost of tractor-cum-trolley is almost ‘nil’ as on date, looking into the Written Down Value.12. Accordingly, the Registry of this Court is directed to refund the amount of Rs.80,000/-, as stated above, to the petitioner on verification.13. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.(Ordered accordingly)_____________