RAM BALI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JANARDAN Sahai, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri S. K. Pandey learned Counsel for the respondent Bank.

(2.) THE petitioner took a loan from the Allahabad Bank for purchase of a tractor. It is stated by the petitioner's Counsel that this loan was taken in the year 1999 and was repayable in instalments over a period of nine years. It appears that the petitioner defaulted. THE Bank initiated recovery proceedings. THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition for quashing the citation issued by the respondent No. 3 Tehsildar and the recovery proceedings and for a mandamus directing the respondents not to arrest and harass the petitioner. THE petitioner has not disputed having taken the loan. In paragraph 13 of the writ petition he has expressed his grievance that compound interest is being charged, which the Bank could not. THE petitioner's contention is that the recovery certificate ought to have been sent to the Up- Ziladhikari and not to the Collector and further that the prescribed authority alone could pass an order for recovery under Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the recovery is time-barred in view of Section 11-A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner has filed objections in this regard before the Tehsildar. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which a statement of account has been annexed by the Bank in which the present outstanding dues have been shown to be Rs. 1,87,450/- upto 30th September, 2006. It is also alleged that the recovery certificate has been sent to the Collector under the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act, 1973.

(3.) IT was then submitted by the petitioner's Counsel that the recovery is time-barred as the loan was payable in instalments and the amount became due when the petitioner defaulted for the first time. The statement of account filed by the Bank indicates that the last payment was made by the petitioner on 22-8-2003. The limitation was therefore in any case extended. After the default was first committed by the petitioner whether it was open to the Bank to recover the defaulted instalment or the entire amount of the loan or it had also the discretion to recover the loan after any subsequent default or after the last instalment became due would depend upon the terms of the agreement. IT is however not necessary to go into this question any further as the last payment was made by the petitioner on 22-8- 2003 and the period of limitation was thus extended. The discretion to recall the loan was exercised by the Bank by its letter-dated 5-8-2004. IT was then that the amount fell due for the purposes of Section 11-A (2 ). The limitation of three years under Section 11-A (2) of the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Credit Act, 1973 would therefore in this case not run from any date before the issuance of the recall notice. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in State of Kerala & Ors. v. V. K. Kalliyani Kutty & Anr. , A. L. J. 1164. In that case it was held that a time-barred debt is not an amount due and therefore cannot be recovered by coercive means. IT is not in dispute that the property of the petitioner has been mortgaged. Article 62 of the Limitation Act, which provides for a 12 years period of limitation would be applicable. The decision in Kalliyani Kutti is wholly distinguishable. From the facts discussed above it is clear that the debt in the present case is not time-barred.