AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 211 wordsManoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Petitioner took agricultural loan from Bank of India, Branch Jhabhreda, District Haridwar. Since petitioner defaulted in repayment of loan, a
recovery citation was issued against him. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.02.2018 had granted conditional protection to the petitioner that if he deposits a sum of Rs.
50,000/- with the respondent bank within two weeks, then no recovery shall be made from him pursuant to the impugned recovery citation dated
12.01.2016.
Admittedly, petitioner took agricultural loan, therefore, he is bound to repay the principal amount as well as the amount of accrued interest. Thus,
any interference with the recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the bank would be unwarranted.
Even otherwise also, petitioner has enjoyed protection of the interim order passed by this Court on 27.02.2018 for more than three years and it is
also not known whether petitioner had deposited the amount, as directed by this Court. Since petitioner is bound to repay the outstanding amount,
therefore, there is no scope for granting the relief, as claimed in the writ petition.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Interim order dated 27.02.2018 stands vacated.