Ajit Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and Others

Ajit Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Mar 14, 2011

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/917635

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/917635
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Satya Poot Mehrotra; Rajesh Chandra, JJ.
Decided On: Mar 14, 2011
Case Number: WRIT - C No. - 15134 of 2011
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

[R.K. Merathia] Indian Penal Act Section 302 - Punishment for murder -- On the other hand, Mr. Rajgarhia, learned counsel for the State, pointed out that the recovery of firearm used in the offence, was made on the basis of the confession of the petitioner and co- accused Nirmal Ravidas; and that the case of the c...

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ajit Kumar Pandey

Advocate Surendra Singh, Adv

Respondent

State of U.P. and Others

Advocate C.S.C.,B.N. Singh, Adv

Excerpt

[r.k. merathia] indian penal act section 302 - punishment for murder -- on the other hand, mr. rajgarhia, learned counsel for the state, pointed out that the recovery of firearm used in the offence, was made on the basis of the confession of the petitioner and co- accused nirmal ravidas; and that the case of the co-accused sri kant das is different from the case of the petitioner as his confession is general in nature; and that this is an off-shoot of the main case vide nirsa p.s. case no. 183/2010 under section 302 ipc. in my opinion, case of the petitioner is different from the case of sri kant das and secondly, it appears that on the confession of the petitioner and co-accused nirmal ravidas, arms used in the crime was recovered. in the facts and circumstances of this case, i am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner......in the circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of finally with the following directions:(i) the petitioner may deposit the entire amount sought to be recovered directly with the contesting respondent no.4-bank in six equal monthly instalments, as mentioned hereunder, with up-todate interest.(ii) the first instalment may be deposited by 1.4.2011 andthereafter the remaining amount may be deposited in five monthly instalments payable on first working day of each succeeding month starting with effect from may 2011. any amount already deposited will be adjusted. (iii) this order will not affect any auction or sale which may already have taken place.(iv) if the petitioner deposits the instalments with up-to-date interest, as fixed by this court, in time, the recovery shall be kept in abeyance but if the petitioner commits default in paying any of the instalment, this order shall stand vacated and the respondents will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.(v) on deposit of all the instalments with up-to-date interest, as fixed by this court, in time, and also 50% of the recovery charges, the recovery proceedings against the petitioner shall be dropped.(vi) this order will not be applicable if the petitioner has filed any earlier writ petition challenging the recovery of this loan.

Full Judgment

1. The petitioner took loan for business purposes under the Pradhan Mantri Rozgar Yogna from the respondent no. 4-Union Bank of India in the year 2007. The petitioner committed default in payment of loan, and consequently, recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner. The Recovery Citation dated 28.2.2011 has been issued in this regard. Copy of the Recovery Citation has been filed as Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition. As per the said Recovery Citation, an amount of Rs. 1,45,683/- plus other charges is due from the petitioner.

2. We have heard Shri Surendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1,2 and 3 and Shri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

3. Shri Surendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is ready to pay the entire amount due from him together with up-to-date interest if time to deposit the same in instalments is granted.

4. Shri B.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 have no objection to the aforesaid prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.

5. In the circumstances, the present Writ Petition is disposed of finally with the following directions:

(i) The petitioner may deposit the entire amount sought to be recovered directly with the contesting respondent no.4-Bank in six equal monthly instalments, as mentioned hereunder, with up-todate interest.

(ii) The first instalment may be deposited by 1.4.2011 andthereafter the remaining amount may be deposited in five monthly instalments payable on first working day of each succeeding month starting with effect from May 2011. Any amount already deposited will be adjusted.

(iii) This order will not affect any auction or sale which may already have taken place.

(iv) If the petitioner deposits the instalments with up-to-date interest, as fixed by this Court, in time, the recovery shall be kept in abeyance but if the petitioner commits default in paying any of the instalment, this order shall stand vacated and the respondents will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

(v) On deposit of all the instalments with up-to-date interest, as fixed by this Court, in time, and also 50% of the recovery charges, the recovery proceedings against the petitioner shall be dropped.

(vi) This order will not be applicable if the petitioner has filed any earlier writ petition challenging the recovery of this loan.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2011 Same Parties Ajit Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and Others Same Subject Education Same Judge Satya Poot Mehrotra; Rajesh Chandra, JJ.

Education