NAWAB HAIDER Vs. URBAN COOPERATIVE BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Vivek Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Deepak Srivastava, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for other opposite parties.

(2.) THE petitioner's son Zeeshan Haidar respondent no.3 took some loan from respondent no.1. Petitioner was guarantor of the loan in terms of Section 40 of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. Section 40 is quoted below:-

(3.) IT has been stated that up till 2007 installments were paid but thereafter respondent no.3 stopped payment. Thereafter it is stated in para 5 of the writ petition that respondent no.3 son of the petitioner started behaving cruelly with the petitioner and thereupon petitioner disowned his son through advertisement in newspaper. In this writ petition, interim order was passed on 12.9.2011 directing that recovery shall not be made from the petitioner, however, it could be made by selling the car as well as immovable property owned by respondent no.3. Respondent no.1 has filed supplementary affidavit stating therein that its employee contacted the opposite party no.3 but he misbehaved with him and refused to give information regarding the house and the car, hence car has not been recovered.