Allahabad High Court
Netra Pal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 17 March, 2011
Bench: Satya Poot Mehrotra, Rajesh Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15362 of 2011
Petitioner :- Netra Pal
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- S.P. Sharma
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,G.K. Srivastava
Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.
Hon'ble Rajesh Chandra,J.
As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the petitioner took loan for construction of house in the year 2007 from the respondent no. 2-Union Bank of India.
The petitioner committed default in payment of loan. Consequently, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short " the Securitisation Act") have been initiated against the petitioner. Possession Notice dated 28.1.2011 (Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition) has been issued in this regard.
We have heard Shri S.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri G.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the contesting respondent no.2-Union Bank of India, and have perused the averments made in the Writ Petition.
In United Bank of India Vs. Satyavati Tandon & others reported in 2010 (8) SCC 110, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down that in view of the alternative remedy available under the Securitization Act, the High Court in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should normally not interfere in respect of the proceedings being taken under the said Act.
Shri S.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, states that the petitioner does not want to question the merits of the proceedings being taken under the Securitization Act and wants to pay the entire outstanding dues with interest and expenses on pro-rata basis in case reasonable time is given to him for making the deposit in instalments.
The learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent-Bank has no objection to the above prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.
In view of the above, we dispose of the Writ Petition with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, without going into the merits of the controversy involved in the Writ Petition, by giving the following directions:
1. The petitioner will clear off the entire outstanding dues along-with interest, penal interest and expenses on pro-rata basis.
2. The entire outstanding dues shall be paid in three instalments. The first instalment amounting to 50% of the total amount due from the petitioner shall be paid within a month from today, and thereafter, the remaining amount shall be paid in 2 equal quarterly instalments.
3. Initially the recovery proceedings are stayed for a month. On depositing the first instalment, impugned proceeding shall remain stayed up to the date of next instalment and the process shall continue until the last instalment has been paid.
4. If the petitioner deposits the entire amount as undertaken by the petitioner in the manner indicated above, the proceedings shall stand withdrawn.
5. If the petitioner fails to deposit the amount of any one instalment within the stipulated period, the Bank shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
6. The cost and recovery charges, if any, shall be paid along-with the last instalment.
It is made clear that this order has been passed on the statements made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Bank, and we have not adjudicated the claim on merits.
The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observations.
Order Date :- 17.3.2011
Ajeet
