Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Mohan Swaroop Vs. Tehsildar and anr.

Mohan Swaroop vs Tehsildar and anr.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Feb 19, 2002
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/464721

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C.M.W.P. No. 6837 of 2002
Subject
Commercial
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Commercial - instalments - Article 226 of Constitution of India - petitioner took a loan from Bank of Baroda - recovery certificate was issued - petition for re-scheduling of loan before High Court - High Court cannot fix instalments, only financial institutions or banks can fix instalments - held, writ petition dis...

Key legal issue
Commercial
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed
Acts & sections
Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohan Swaroop

Advocate T.S. Dabas, Adv.

Respondent

Tehsildar and anr.

Advocate C.P. Mishra, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In
2002(2)AWC1096

Excerpt

commercial - instalments - article 226 of constitution of india - petitioner took a loan from bank of baroda - recovery certificate was issued - petition for re-scheduling of loan before high court - high court cannot fix instalments, only financial institutions or banks can fix instalments - held, writ petition dismissed. - - so far as writ jurisdiction is concerned, there are well-settled principles on which writ jurisdiction can be exercised and it is not open to this court to transgress those limits whenever it so pleases. this court has to function under the law and has to observe judicial discipline by following the well-settled principles for exercising the power under article 226 of the constitution.m. katju and rakesh tiwari, jj.1. heard sri t. s. dabas, learned counsel for the petitioner and sri c. p. mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.2. the petitioner has challenged the impugned recovery certificate dated 1st august, 2001, annexure-2 to the writ petition. the petitioner took a loan from the bank of baroda, respondent no. 2 and the recovery certificate has been issued in that 'connection. 3. the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that instalments should be fixed. in our opinion high court has no power under article 226 of the constitution to fix instalments. fixing instalments really means re-scheduling the loan. such re-scheduling, in our opinion, can only be done by the bank or the financial institution which granted the loan, and not by the high court. 4. a writ of certiorari under article 226 of the constitution of india lies only when there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. a writ cannot be issued merely for fixing the instalments as that will be re-scheduling the loan. so far as writ jurisdiction is concerned, there are well-settled principles on which writ jurisdiction can be exercised and it is not open to this court to transgress those limits whenever it so pleases. this court has to function under the law and has to observe judicial discipline by following the well-settled principles for exercising the power under article 226 of the constitution. 5. with the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

M. Katju and Rakesh Tiwari, JJ.

1. Heard Sri T. S. Dabas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C. P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned recovery certificate dated 1st August, 2001, Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The petitioner took a loan from the Bank of Baroda, respondent No. 2 and the recovery certificate has been issued in that 'connection.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that instalments should be fixed. In our opinion High Court has no power under Article 226 of the Constitution to fix instalments. Fixing instalments really means re-scheduling the loan. Such re-scheduling, in our opinion, can only be done by the Bank or the Financial institution which granted the loan, and not by the High Court.

4. A writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies only when there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record. A writ cannot be issued merely for fixing the instalments as that will be re-scheduling the loan. So far as writ jurisdiction is concerned, there are well-settled principles on which writ jurisdiction can be exercised and it is not open to this Court to transgress those limits whenever it so pleases. This Court has to function under the law and has to observe judicial discipline by following the well-settled principles for exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution.

5. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial