SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(All) 362

MARKANDEY KATJU, R.S.TRIPATHI
Vlpln Kumar Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Gyanpur – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
R.B.Sahai, R.K.Malviya,

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties,

( 2 ) THE petitioner took a loan in respect of which the impugned recovery has been issued. The only prayer of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Court should fix instalments. In our opinion under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court has no power to fix instalments.

( 3 ) FIXING instalments is really rescheduling of the loan, which can only be done by the Bank or Financial Institution which granted the loan. A large number of petitions are being filed before us in which the only prayer is that the High Court should fix instalments or grant one time settlement. In our opinion the High Court has no power to fix instalments or to grant one time settlement. Fixing instalments or granting one time settlement is really rescheduling of the loan which the High Court cannot do only the bank or Financial Institution which granted the loan can do so. These are really the contractual matters and the High Court cannot interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction.

( 4 ) IT may be mentioned that there are well settled limitations on the power of the high Court to issue writs under Article 226 of the Constitution. Article 226 (1










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top