Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/2250/2017 of MALKEET SINGH Vs UCO BANK THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER on 29 December 2023

Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS WPMS No. 2250 of 2017 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J. Ms. Unnati Pant, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. M.S. bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner.

|**S.** **No**|**Date**|**Office Notes,** **reports, orders or** **proceedings or** **directions and** **Registrar’s order** **with Signatures**||**COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS**| |---|---|---|---|---| |||||WPMS No. 2250 of 2017 **Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, A.C.J.** Ms. Unnati Pant, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. M.S. bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate for the respondents. 3. Petitioner took a loan from UCO Bank, Branch Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. Since he defaulted in repayment of loan, therefore, coercive steps for recovery of loan were taken against him. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed this writ petition in 2017, seeking following relief: _“a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature_ _of Mandamus directing the respondent Bank not to take_ _any coercive measures against the petitioner for_ _recovery of loan amount of Rs. 8,20,092 (Rs. Eight Lac_ _Twenty Thousand and Ninety Two Only)”_ 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for UCO bank submits that in the absence of any interim order passed in the writ petition, loan must have been recovered by now. 5. This Court finds substance in the said contention. 6. More than six years have gone by since filing of the writ petition, therefore, the bank authorities must have recovered the loan from the petitioner. Thus, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. **( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, A.C.J.)** 29.12.2023 Navin|

Page 1 of 1

Loading citations and judicial treatment…