IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1123 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6181 of 2005 ====================================================== Shatrughan Singh S/O Late Indradeo Singh R/O Vill.- Rampur Diyara, P.S.- Maner, Distt.- Patna .... Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Co-Operative Societies, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The District Manager-Cum-Certificate Officer, Land Development Bank, Patna, Distt.- Patna. 4. The Branch Manager, Land Development Bank, Danapur, P.S.- Danapur, Distt.- Patna. 5. Managing Director, Land Development Bank, At Budha Marg, Patna, Distt.- Patna. .... Respondents/Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vindya Keshari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Satish Kumar Singh, Advocate. For Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : Mr. Rajesh Pd. Choudhary, Adv. For the State : Mr. Vikash Kumar, A.C. to A.A.G.-1. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 2 09-09-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 9th May 2011 passed by the learned single judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 6181 of 2005, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The matter at dispute is realization of the loan amount Patna High Court LPA No.1123 of 2011 (2) dt.09-09-2011 2 advanced by the respondent- Land Development Bank to the appellant for purchase of a tractor. It is not in dispute that the appellant was in default of repayment of the loan amount. Feeling aggrieved by the seizure of the tractor by the Bank, the appellant approached the respondent- Registrar, Co-operative Societies in Miscellaneous Case No. 165 of 2003. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, by order dated 19th July 2004, rejected the application of the appellant with observations that the respondent Bank would be liable to recover the loan amount. The appellant challenged the said order in above C.W.J.C. No. 6181 of 2005. The learned single Judge has rejected the writ petition. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Vindya Keshari has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that the Bank has seized the tractor in the year 1998. The Bank cannot charge interest over the loan amount; nor can the Bank charge compound interest since the date of the seizure. We see no merit in this Appeal. Appeal is dismissed in limine. BTiwary/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)