Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri J.P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State -respondents as well as Sri S.K. Kakkar, learned counsel appearing for respondent -Bank. Challenge in this petition is recovery proceeding.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has made statement at the bar that this is the first writ petition against the recovery proceeding and this fact has also been stated in the writ petition. Petitioner has taken loan of Rs. 6,00,000/ - from respondent -Bank on 10.8.2009. According to the petitioner he could not pay the entire amount due to unavoidable circumstances, as stated in the writ petition, on account of which entire payable amount up to the period of last instalment, which is huge one to the tune of Rs. 9,88,544/ - etc. is sought to be recovered by adopting coercive methods including the attachment and arrest. Submission is that if reasonable time is allowed to pay the amount sought to be recovered, petitioner may be able to pay the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, also gave an undertaking that in case, he is allowed to pay the amount under recovery in some easy instalments and if any default is committed, the petitioner shall pay a cost of Rs. 50,000/ - over and above the amount, which remains to be recovered from the petitioner and the writ petition may be deemed to be dismissed in that event. To the aforesaid, learned counsel appearing for Bank submits that although in some of the cases it has been said that against the recovery proceedings unless some illegality is pointed out the Court may not interfere but at the same time submission is that intention of the respondent bank has been never to cause any irreparable injury to the loanee rather the loan amount was advanced with the purpose to improve the petitioner's future prospects and thus if for justifiable reason the amount in terms of the agreement has not been paid and now petitioner has bona fide intention to pay the amount within a reasonable time then if that liberty is given, it will serve the interest of both sides i.e. petitioner may be saved from the rigours of coercive process i.e. arrest, auction of the properties etc. and at the same time respondent bank will get its full amount with interest. Thus for grant of reasonable time, if that is to advance justice, respondents may not have any objection.
(3.) IN view of aforesaid, this Court feels in the ends of justice that amount sought to be recovered be permitted to be deposited in the following manner, which will protect loanee from depriving of immovable/movable properties causing irreparable loss to the family which is to occasion on account of coercive process and at the same time, concerned Bank will also get its amount.;