SATISH CHANDRA
Uma Datt Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Collector – Respondent
Satish Chandra, J.
Under an agreement dated 17th February, 1969, the Petitioner took a loan of Rs. 5,700/-from the U.P. Agro Industrial Corporation, Lucknow. The Petitioner paid some installments but defaulted in paying some others, with the result that the authorities issued a recovery certificate for recovering a sum of Rs. 3,787/- as principal and Rs. 4,800/- as interest. On receipt of the recovery certificate a warrant for the arrest of the Petitioner was issued by the Tehsildar, Mahrajganj. This warrant was executed by the Amin who arrested the Petitioner on or about 2nd February, 1975. Near about this lime some properly, other than the property which was mortgaged under the instrument of loan, was put up for auction and sold for Rs. 8,000/-.
2. The Petitioner challenges these proceedings on the ground that they were illegal.
3. The U.P. Public Moneys (Recovery of Debts) Act No. XXIII of 1972 applies to moneys advanced as loans by inter alia Corporations owned or controlled by the State Government. The U.P. Agro Industrial Corporation, which, in the present case, had advanced the money, is a Corporation within meaning of this Act. Section 3 of the Act makes the Act appl
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.