AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sushil Harkauli, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The respondents Counsel was given an option to file counter-affidavit which he did not opt to file. He has argued the matter relying upon the decision or Supreme Court reported in State Bank of India Vs. Yasangi Venkateswara Rao, , the said decision has no application with the present case.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relie upon Section 11-A(2) of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973.
In para 4 and 6 of the Writ Petition, it has been stated that the petitioner become defaulter in 1989 and the amount became due was not recovered. The recovery certificate which has been issued after seven years is hereby quashed in view of provision of Section 11-A (2) of the U.P. Agricultural Credit Act.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. However, it will be open to the respondent Bank to pursue such other remedy as may be available to the bank under the law.