Court No. - 18
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35670 of 2018 Petitioner :- Brijlal Mohan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shrawan Kumar Pandey,Shobh Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Agrawal
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri Shrawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sheeta Pandey, Advocate appearing for the Union Bank of India.
The present writ petition is being filed assailing the validity of order impugned dated 29.08.2018 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) Saharanpur (second respondent) against the petitioner in Application no.31 of 2018 (Authorized Officer Union Bank of India, Head Branch Railway Road, Saharanpur vs. Brijlal Mohan and another) under Section 14 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (in brevity 'SARFAESI Act 2002'). Further prayer has been made to command the respondents not to interfere into the peaceful possession of the house of the petitioner in respect of loan amount of Rs.7 lacs.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of instructions, states that petitioner is ready and willing to clear outstanding amount, which is due against him and as such, it is prayed that some reasonable time may be accorded by this Court.
On the other hand, learned counsel who represents the concerned bank states that so far as the instructions from the bank is concerned, one month time can be accorded in case the petitioner is willing to clear the outstanding amount due against him. In support of her submission, she has placed reliance on the judgement passed by the Apex Court in ICICI Bank Ltd. Etc. vs. Umakanta Mohapatra Etc (Civil Apeal no.10243-10250 of 2018) and as such it is submitted that in the proceeding initiated under the SARFAESI Act 2002, the High Court may refrain themselves from interfering.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, once the bank itself has accepted that one month's time may be accorded to the petitioner to clear the outstanding amount, then in such a situation, the equity demands that once mere indulgence may be accorded to the petitioner.
Consequently, the present writ petition stands disposed of in terms of instructions so accorded by the bank. In case the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the outstanding amount, which is due against him, within a month's time from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner, otherwise the bank would be at liberty to proceed strictly in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 A. Pandey