Kapil Goel Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Kapil Goel vs State of U.P. and Others

Disposition Writ petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Jul 23, 2001

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/478064

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/478064
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: M. Katju and ;R.B. Misra, JJ.
Decided On: Jul 23, 2001
Case Number: C.M.W.P. No. 26545 of 2001
Subject: Commercial
Disposition: Writ petition dismissed

Case Summary

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

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

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kapil Goel

Advocate Raj Kumar, Adv.

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Acts: Constitution of India - Article 226
Reported In: 2001(3)AWC2230

Excerpt

- m. katju, j.1. the petitioner is challenging the impugned recovery. no illegality has been pointed out and hence, we cannot interfere in writ jurisdiction.2. learned counsel for the petitioner urged that this court should fix instalments.3. in our opinion the high court under article 226 of the constitution cannot fix instalments as the high court in writ jurisdiction can interfere only when there is error of law apparent on the face of record. simply for fixing instalments, no writcan be issued. fixing instalments means rescheduling of the loan and this can only be done by the bank or the financial institution, which granted the loan. the high court under article 226 cannot reschedule the loan. the writ petition is dismissed.

Full Judgment

M. Katju, J.

1. The petitioner is challenging the impugned recovery. No illegality has been pointed out and hence, we cannot interfere in writ jurisdiction.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that this Court should fix instalments.

3. In our opinion the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot fix instalments as the High Court in writ jurisdiction can interfere only when there is error of law apparent on the face of record. Simply for fixing instalments, no writcan be issued. Fixing instalments means rescheduling of the loan and this can only be done by the Bank or the Financial institution, which granted the loan. The High Court under Article 226 cannot reschedule the loan. The writ petition is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2001 Same Parties Kapil Goel vs State of U.P. and Others Same Subject Commercial Same Judge M. Katju and ;R.B. Misra, JJ. Acts & Sections Constitution of India - Article 226

Commercial Financial Institution high court Has been