Saturday, 09, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

WPMS/1935/2018
2021 Latest Caselaw 2588 UK

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2588 UK
Judgement Date : 24 July, 2021

Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1935/2018 on 24 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                         AT NAINITAL
           ON THE 24th DAY OF JULY, 2021
                              BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

          Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1935 of 2018


BETWEEN:
       Pradeep Kumar                                .......Petitioner
       (By Mr. Vinod Joshi, Advocate)


AND:
       State of Uttarakhand & others....Respondents
       (By Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State
       of Uttarakhand)



                               JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

2. Petitioner took a loan from State Bank of India, Branch Mohanpura, Roorkee, District Haridwar. Since he defaulted in re-payment of the loan amount, therefore, proceedings for recovery of the outstanding amount were initiated against him.

3. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the recovery citation dated 30.01.2018, which is on record as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition.

4. A Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.07.2018 granted protection to the petitioner from recovery proceedings, provided he deposits a sum of ` 4,00,000/- with the bank,

within ten days. Subsequently, on 12.03.2019, another Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order and provided that if petitioner deposits a sum of ` 4,00,000/- in terms of the order dated 11.07.2018, then the interim order granted earlier would continue to operate.

5. Petitioner's counsel is not in a position to inform this Court as to whether petitioner has deposited any amount in terms of the aforesaid order.

6. Admittedly, petitioner is a borrower, who had taken loan from the bank. He is bound by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement executed between him and the bank. Therefore, there is no scope for interference with the impugned recovery citation.

7. In such view of the matter, writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

8. Interim order dated 11.07.2018 stands vacated.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Navin

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter