Nanhkoo vs State Of U.P. And Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 1915 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 36
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30294 of 2011
 

 
Petitioner :- Nanhkoo
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Madan Mohan Srivastava
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Anamika Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.

Hon'ble Rajesh Chandra,J.

      The petitioner took Cash Credit Limit from the respondent no.3-Union  Bank of India.

    The petitioner committed default in respect of the said facility. 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.

    We have heard Shri  Madan Mohan Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1 and Smt. Anamika Singh, learned counsel for the contesting respondent-Bank, 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 Madan Mohan Srivastava, 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 four  instalments. The first instalment of Rs. 3.5 Lacs shall be paid within a month from today, and thereafter, the  remaining amount will be paid in three equal 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 the 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 :- 24.5.2011

AK