IQBAL NASEER USMANI Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2006-1-35
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on January 19,2006

IQBAL NASEER USMANI Appellant
VERSUS
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

DEEPAK KUMAR PANDEY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-3-206] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-4-423] [REFERRED TO]
IBEX GALLAGHER PRIVATE LTD VS. CONSERVATOR OF FOREST [LAWS(KAR)-2009-7-78] [REFERRED TO]
MINA ONGDI LEPCHA VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2006-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
MANGLAM STEELS VS. COLLECTOR HARIDWAR DISTRICT HARIDWAR [LAWS(UTN)-2008-3-196] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR PANDEY VS. U P STATE FOOD & ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES CORP. [LAWS(ALL)-2014-7-160] [REFERRED TO]
M/S RAMA PETROCHEMICAL LTD. VS. PUNJAB STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(P&H)-2009-11-96] [REFERRED TO]
MICKY PALTA VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2014-12-24] [REFERRED TO]
NIYAZ AHMAD @ NIZAM VS. TEHSILDAR, KASHIPUR [LAWS(UTN)-2015-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
TRILOK SINGH VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BAGESHWAR [LAWS(UTN)-2015-1-55] [REFERRED TO]
SINGLA REALTERS LIMITED VS. MUNICIPAL BOARD PARISHAD [LAWS(UTN)-2015-6-11] [REFERRED TO]
SRI DEEPAK VERMA S/O LATE SRI ANAND PRAKASH VERMA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2011-1-73] [REFERRED TO]
ZUBAIR VS. STATE AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2010-12-122] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR AGARWAL VS. U.P. FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2015-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
RED ROSE SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL RAJAJIPURAM VS. AMAR KUMAR VERMA [LAWS(ALL)-2011-1-127] [REFERRED TO]
NUTECH PAKCAGING LIMITED VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2011-2-131] [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS VS. IBEX GALLAGHER PVT LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2010-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS VS. IBEX GALLAGHER PVT LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2010-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
Singla Realters Ltd. VS. Municipal Board Parishad, Nainital & Ors. [LAWS(UTN)-2011-3-138] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR GUPTA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2013-4-116] [REFERRED TO]
INDIRA NIGAM VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-10-119] [REFERRED TO]
SHAZAD ALI S/O SRI BASHEER AHMAD VS. COLLECTOR HARIDWAR AND ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2010-9-214] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. SINGLA REALTERS LTD. VS. MUNICIPAL BORD PARISHAD, NAINITAL & ORS. [LAWS(UTN)-2011-3-219] [REFERRED TO]
PAVAN PODAR & ANR. VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-7-270] [REFERRED TO]
PARAS NATH SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-23] [REFERRED TO]
PANDURANG GANPATI CHAUGULE VS. VISHWASRAO PATIL MURGUD SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2020-5-2] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Srikrishna, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The appellant obtained a loan of Rs. 64,000/- from the first respondent on 30-5-1981 for the purchase of a motor vehicle under the terms of agreement between the appellant and the first respondent. The loan had to be discharged by payment of certain instalments. The appellant defaulted in repayment of this loan. First respondent filed Regular Suit No. 66 of 1991 for recovering the amount of Rs. 2,48,438.64 p. which represented the unpaid amount of loan together with accumulated interest thereon. The Civil Court by a decree dated 28-11-1995, decreed the said amount. The appellant filed an appeal against the said decree in Forma Pauperis with an application for being declared as a pauper. This application was rejected by the appellate court by order dated 4-4-2002.
(3.)Instead of executing the decree obtained against the appellant, the first respondent approached the Tehsildar, Gonda for issuing a certificate of recovery under the provisions of Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). The appellant was called upon to appear before the Tehsildar in connection with the amount claimed by the first respondent-Bank. Since the appellant failed to appear before the Tehsildar, a warrant was issued by the Tehsildar against the appellant to appear before the Tehsildar regarding recovery of the decretal amount. The appellant challenged the action taken by the Revenue Authority by his Writ Petition No. 4294 of 2004. The High Court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit. The appellant is before this Court to impugn the said judgment of the High Court.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.