Shivam Singh Yadav vs. Union Of INDIA Thru. Secy. Mini. Of Finance Jeevan Deep Building Sansad Marg New Delhi And 7 Others
Held
The Court found no good ground to interfere with the matter as prayed by the petitioner. The primary reason for dismissal appears to be the conflicting evidence presented by the Bank of India. The handwritten application of the petitioner dated 18.01.2025, produced by the Bank, directly contradicted the petitioner's assertion that he never took the commercial loan. This application indicated that the petitioner had taken the loan, faced business losses, and was seeking time for repayment due to his inability to do so promptly. The Court implicitly gave credence to this admission by the petitioner. Therefore, the Court concluded that the petitioner's claim of fraud and not taking the loan was not substantiated by the presented record, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition. No specific issues were expressly left undecided.
Facts
The petitioner, Shivam Singh Yadav, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the authorities to decide his application dated 20.11.2025. He alleged that opposite parties no. 7 and 8, with the collusion of bank officials, fraudulently obtained GST registration in his name for 'SMSY Enterprises' and took a commercial loan of Rs. 9,00,000/-. This loan was allegedly transferred to their acquaintances and embezzled. The petitioner claimed he had no knowledge of business and did not take the loan. He submitted a complaint to the authorities but received no action. The Bank of India produced a handwritten application from the petitioner dated 18.01.2025, stating he had taken a commercial loan, suffered business losses, closed his business, and was unable to repay the loan on time, requesting more time for repayment.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the opposite parties to decide the petitioner's application dated 20.11.2025, concerning alleged fraud and embezzlement of a commercial loan taken in his name? (Question of mixed law and fact, potentially invoking principles of natural justice and administrative efficiency). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that opposite parties no. 7 and 8, in collusion with bank officials, fraudulently obtained GST registration in his name and took a Rs. 9,00,000/- commercial loan, which was then embezzled. He claimed he had no business knowledge and did not take the loan. Despite filing a complaint, no action was taken, necessitating the writ petition. Revenue/State's Contention: The Bank of India, represented by its counsel, submitted a handwritten application from the petitioner dated 18.01.2025. This application stated that the petitioner had indeed taken a commercial loan from the bank, incurred business losses, closed his business, and was unable to repay the loan on time, requesting an extension for repayment. This application contradicted the petitioner's claim of not taking the loan.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11660 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This petition has been filed with the following main prayers :- "(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties no.1 to 4 to decide early the petitioner application dated 20.11.2025 sent through registered post to opposite parties no.1 to 4 for fair and properly inquiry after then take legal action against opposite parties no.5 to 8 because together committed fraud by making a fake promise in the applicant's name and taking a commercial loan of Rs.900000/- (nine lakh rupees) and transferring it to their own acquaintances and embezzled the applicant's loan amount fraudulent with the applicant by the opposite party no.5 and 6 contained as Annexure 1 and 2 to this writ petition."
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite parties no.7 and 8 without the applicant's knowledge have obtained GST registration for the applicant as SMSY Enterprises 555-46, Kanpur Raod, Lucknow wh
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.