Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3775 (ALL)

Praduman Kumar Jain v. State of U. P. and Others

2010-12-21

ASHOK BHUSHAN, SHYAM SHANKAR TIWARI

body2010
By The Court—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Siddharth for respondent No.4 and the learned Standing Counsel.2. By this petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing the citation dated 07.12.2010, for an amount of Rs.15,66,777/-3. Petitioner’s case in the writ petition is that the petitioner’s wife applied for a loan of Rs. 25 lacs out of which Rs.9,50,000/- was a term loan whereas a sum of Rs.14,25,000/- as O.C.C. Limit. The petitioner is guarantor of the aforesaid loan. On default being committed, recovery certificate has been sent, consequently citation dated 07.12.2010, for recovery of an amount of Rs.15,66,777/- has been issued.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount ofRs.14,25,000/- as O.C.C. Limit was not under the State sponsored scheme and it could not have been recovered as arrears of land revenue.5. Learned counsel for the respondents was granted time on 15.12.2010, to obtain instruction and after obtaining instruction he submits that the entire loan was sanctioned to the petitioner under the Khadi Gramudyog Rojgar Yojana sponsored by Khadi and Village Industries Commission and the entire scheme was State sponsored scheme under which the petitioner’s wife Smt. Pushplata Jain was sanctioned the loan. He submits that the term loan as well as the O.C.C. Limit was under the said scheme.6. Learned counsel for the respondents has produced the loan application form and other materials before the Court which clearly proves that the term loan as well as the O.C.C. Limit was under the aforesaid State sponsored scheme.7. In view of above the submission of the petitioner that the O.C.C. Limit could not be recovered as arrears of land revenue cannot be accepted.8. Learned counsel for the petitioner now comes up with a prayer that the petitioner who is a guarantor should be given some reasonable time to clear up the entire outstanding amount.9. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that the Bank is interested in realising its amount, and in case the petitioner makes the payment within the time fixed by the Court the Bank has no objection.10. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the view that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending and the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:(1) The petitioner is permitted to deposit the entire outstanding amount along with interest in 8 equal quarterly installment. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the view that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the writ petition pending and the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:(1) The petitioner is permitted to deposit the entire outstanding amount along with interest in 8 equal quarterly installment. First installment shall be paid on or before 31.1.2011 and thereafter within every 3 month;(2) Subject to payment as directed above, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of the citation dated 07.12.2010.(3) In event the petitioner fails to make the payment of any instalment as directed above, this order shall stand discharged and recovery proceedings be revived and the Bank shall proceed to take further action in accordance with law.(4) Only citation having been issued against the petitioner in the facts of the present case, we provide that no recovery charges shall be realised from the petitioner._____________