Sanjay Kumar Pathak v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2768 of 2014 =========================================================== Sanjay Kumar Pathak Son of Shri Krishna Pathak, resident of Village- Dilmanpur, P.S. Shahpur, Dist. Bhojpur, Ara, Properietor of M/s Neelkamal Bhandar .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, Old Secretariat, Patna.
2. Regional Manager, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, At Hari Ji Ka Hata, Near Jain Dharamshala, Ara
3. Branch Manager, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Karnamapur, P.S. Shahpur, Dist. Bhojpur, Ara .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shiopujan Singh, Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Resp. Bank : Mr. M.N.Parbhat, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to SC 14 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 04-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Bank.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent Bank not to recover any amount illegally from the petitioner in connection with the loan of Rs. 15.00 lakhs (C.C. Account) taken by the petitioner from the respondent Bank on 23.01.2013.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner has been depositing instalments regularly from February, 2013 to August, 2013 in all amounting to around Rs. 22,98,000/-. Further payment however, could not be made in view of the flood in Bihar.
Patna High Court CWJC No.2768 of 2014 dt.04-01-2016
4. Learned counsel for the respondent Bank on the other hand submits that there is no valid basis for the prayer of the petitioner for a direction not to recover the remaining outstanding amount of loan taken by him. A detailed calculation of the amount due from the petitioner has been made in terms of the C.C. Account, a copy of which has been furnished to the petitioner as far back as in 2014, but neither further payments have been made by the petitioner nor even a response to the counter affidavit has been filed.
5. Having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. The fact that the cash credit facility had been availed by the petitioner is not in dispute, so also non-payment of the part of the outstanding loan with interest has also not been disputed. In the above view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere in a purely contractual matter between the parties. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.
6. It is made clear that this judgment shall not stand in the way of the petitioner in approaching the respondent Bank for any relief, which the Bank may consider entirely on its own merits and at its own discretion.
(Vikash Jain, J) Chandran U