- (1.) Heard Sri R.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties no.2 and 3.
(2.) None has put in appearance on behalf of the Bank of Baroda and no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bank.
(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for the loan to the Bank for purchase of Mahindra Jeep and thereafter the Bank sanctioned a term loan of Rs.1.20 lacs on 13.5.1991. The petitioner was required to repay the loan within three years with interest, as the petitioner failed to pay the dues of the Bank, the recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the citation dated 9.2.1995, the petitioner has approached this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the loan was granted to the petitioner for commercial purpose and as such the Bank has no authority under the law to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2002 (20) L.C.D. page 472, Smt.Sharda Devi v. State of U.P. and others and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2003 (1) Bank C.L.R. page 422 (S.C), M/s.Unique Butyle Tube Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. U.P. Finance Corporation and others.;