Sudhir Agarwal - (1.) Heard Sri Anubhav Kumar Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Sri M.E.Khan, learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) It is admitted that petitioner has obtained agricultural loan for purchase of Tractor of Rs.72,000 and thereagainst he has paid total sum of Rs.1,25,000/-. He said that applying principle of Damdupat, maximum twice of the amount was payable therefore only, 144,000/- can be asked to be paid by petitioner. Since he has already paid Rs.1,25,000/-, therefore, he may be allowed to pay remaining amount and no dues certificate be issued to him. Reliance is place by learned counsel for petitioner on a learned Single Judge judgment of this Court in Chander vs. State of U.P. and others,2007 3 JCLR 355 (All).
(3.) It is really unfortunate that learned counsel for petitioner has cited a Single Judge judgment in Chander vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) though the aforesaid judgment has been overruled by Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition (Writ - C) No. 644 of 2018, Rao Shiv Nath Singh Memorial Khadi Gramodyog Samiti & Anr. vs. State of U.P. and 5 others decided on 08.01.2018, wherein this Court has categorically said as under : "The judgement of the learned Single Judge, entered in the case of Chander Vs. State of U.P. and another,2007 3 JCLR 355 (All), applying the principle of Damdupat to bank loans does not lay down the correct law and is overruled".;