Patna High Court
Hari Kishore Singh vs The Central Bank Of India Through Its ... on 22 April, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4958 of 2017
======================================================
Hari Kishore Singh Son of Late Hari Ballabh Singh, Resident of Village-
Marwan, P.O.- Marwan, Via- Siho, P.S.- Sakra, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Central Bank Of India Through Its Chairman and Ors
2. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Muzaffarpur.
3. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Siho Branch, District-
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nand Gopal Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate
: Mr.Ajit Kumar Sinha, Advocate
: Ms.Minu Kumari, Advocate
: Ms.Dilkash Khan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 22-04-2025
1. The writ petition is filed for following
reliefs:-
(i) for issuance of writ of
mandamus or any appropriate
writ/order/direction to the respondents
to release the Tractor of the petitioner
bearing Registration No. BR-33F-2183
(Excort-434 PT Tractor) in proper
running condition as it was at the time
of its seizure by the Bank to the
petitioner forthwith, which the
respondent/Bank agreed after settling
the issue and arriving at a compromise
with the petitioner on 11.03.2016.
or
Patna High Court CWJC No.4958 of 2017 dt.22-04-2025
In alternative, if the
respondent/Bank fails to release and
handover the said Tractor to the
petitioner in proper running condition,
the respondents be directed to close
the loan account No. 2359624766 and
return back the mortgaged land papers
along with no dues certificate to the
petitioner, issued in respect of the said
loan account.
(ii.) Any other relief/reliefs for
which the petitioner is found entitled
may be granted to the petitioner.
2. On perusal of the entire record, it is
evident that the petitioner availed a loan from the
Central Bank of India, Siho Branch, in 2008 under
Kisan Credit Card No. 1361. The writ petition
specifically contends that five bighas of land were
mortgaged with the bank along with the relevant
land papers.
3. Initially, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) was sanctioned under
the Kisan Credit Card. Additionally, a loan of Rs.
3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifty Thousand Only)
was sanctioned for a tractor under Loan Account No.
2359624766. Both loans were dealt with jointly by
the bank, and the tractor was delivered with margin
Patna High Court CWJC No.4958 of 2017 dt.22-04-2025
money provided to the agencies from the Kisan
Credit Card account.
4. Furthermore, the writ petition contends
that no EMI was fixed, only a period of five years was
stipulated for the repayment of the loan. The tractor
was hypothecated to the bank under an agreement
dated 05.11.2008. Pursuant to this agreement, the
agency delivered the tractor but caused an
unreasonable delay in providing the proper
documents for the registration of the tractor with the
District Transport Office. As a result, the registration
was only completed in 2010, with Registration No.
BR-33F-2183 dated 02.03.2010. The writ petition
further contends that due to the delayed registration
of the tractor and crop failures, the petitioner was
unable to repay the loan amount within the
stipulated five-year period, leading the bank to issue
a notice dated 05.03.2013, demanding payment of
Rs. 2,46,283/-. When the petitioner failed to make
the necessary payment, the tractor was seized by
the bank on 12.06.2013. The present writ petition
Patna High Court CWJC No.4958 of 2017 dt.22-04-2025
seeks the release of the seized tractor or the closure
of the loan account.
5. This is purely a civil dispute between the
bank and the petitioner concerning a commercial
transaction that took place between them. There is
no infringement of the fundamental rights of the
petitioner in any manner. If the petitioner is
aggrieved by the actions of the bank, he must
approach the appropriate forum to seek redress.
6. Therefore, the writ petition is not
maintainable and is dismissed as devoid of merit.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
vinita/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 23.04.2025
Transmission Date
