DAYANATH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF UP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Sri Anand kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1, Sri H. R. Misra, learned senior Counsel assisted by Sri K. M. Misra for respondent No. 2 and Sri Ghanshyam joshi for respondent No. 3.

(2.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged recovery proceedings initiated against him by the respondent No. 2. He has sought relief for quashing the entire recovery proceedings and to direct the respondent No. 2 Allahabad Bank to accept payment desired to be made by him.

(3.) IT appears from the record that the petitioner applied to respondent No. 2 for loan amounting to Rs. 5 lacs only for construction of house. The loan was sanctioned and amount of Rs. 4,39,971/- was paid to the petitioner, which was to be refunded in 180 monthly instalment. The petitioner paid some amount from time to time but he could not regularly pay the instalments due to personal difficulties. The respondent No. 2 started recovery proceedings and put his house to auction. It has also been alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner is ready to deposit the entire amount due. The respondent No. 2 has also taken similar plea that the petitioner did not repay the loan and committed default, therefore, recovery proceedings were initiated under securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Act ).