CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2002) 03 JH CK 0019

Jayant Kumar Gupta vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 13 March 2002

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vinod Kumar Gupta, C.J · Vishnudeo Narayan, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
L.P.A. No. 153 of 2002

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 327 words
1.

With respect to a simple loan transaction, the appellant-writ petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution restraining the Bank from recovering the loan amount. This petition was filed on a mere demand from the Bank. It is the admitted case of the appellant-writ petitioner that a valid agreement at the relevant time was executed between the parties and that the loan amount was received by the petitioner. The agreement was with respect to the production of the plastic carry bags. Much after the execution of the agreement, receipt of the money and the Unit having gone into production, the Government of India, as per the appellant-writ petitioner, banned the production of the plastic carry bags. The appellant-writ petitioner invoked Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act and approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of an appropriate writ against the Bank with respect to the recovery of the amount in question by the Bank from the appellant-writ petitioner. The learned Single Judge vide the judgment under appeal has rightly dismissed the writ application.

2.

The appellant-writ petitioner rushed to this Court by wrongly invoking Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act at a stage when the Bank had merely sent a notice to him. It had not filed any suit against the writ petitioner. Whatever defences, whether legally tenable or not, which the appellant-writ petitioner might have had, it was open to him to have raised such defences if and when the Bank filed such a suit against the petitioner. Instead of doing that, the petitioner filed the aforesaid misconceived writ petition. Not being content with the filing of the misconceived writ petition, the appellant-writ petitioner has filed this misconceived appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

The appeal has no merit. It is dismissed with costs, assessed at Rs. 3.000/- (rupees three thousand), which shall be deposited by the appellant in the Advocates Association Welfare Fund, Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.