CHARANJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is facing recovery of an amount of Rs.8,68,616.00 i.e. principal amount alongwith an interest which has fallen due till date, though as against the recovery citation, no writ petition is maintainable, except subject to condition that where the bank agrees to accept the amount sought to be recovered in accepting the same in installments. The writ court cannot interfere in fixing the installments for the reason being that extension of financial benefits since being governed under the provisions or terms of the agreement of the loan. The High Court while exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot fix the installment as the ratio which has been laid down by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of 'Ram Kripal vs. Collector, Banda and Another' reported in 2002 (2) UPLBEC1371 held in its paragraph 1, which is quoted hereunder:

(2.) It has held that in recovery proceedings the court has got no power to pray for rescheduling of the impugned recovery, which cannot be done as it is regulated by the terms of the agreement for loan.

(3.) An identical view has been taken by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Ranchi in the case of 'Pradip Rubber Industries vs. Bihar State Financial Corporation and Others', wherein, it has been held that the writ courts in Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce a purely contractual matters and a prayer made by way of mandamus for refixation of the loan as granted under the terms of the contract or under OTS scheme or rescheduling of the loan, which would really amount to be a modification of the contract, which can only be gone by mutual consent of the parties as contemplated under Sec. 62 of the Contract Act. Paragraphs 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 are quoted hereinbelow: