Page No.# 1/3 vs Uco Bank And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 4289 Gua

                                                                         Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010221662022




                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/6994/2022

            DHEKIAJULI SAMABAI KALA MANDIR LTD AND ANR
            (A REGD. CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY BEARING REGISTRATION NO. T-21/164-
            65 DATED 13.7.1964) REP. BY ITS SECY. MR. JOHN SAIKIA, DAILY MARKET,
            WARD NO. 7, P.O. DHEKIAJULI, DIST.- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 784110

            2: JOHN SAIKIA
             S/O- LT. RADHIKA PRASAD SAIKIA
             R/O- WARD NO. 8
             P.O. DHEKIAJULI
             DIST.- SONITPUR
            ASSAM
             PIN- 78411

            VERSUS

            UCO BANK AND ANR
            A BODY CORPORATE UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION
            AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT, 1970 HAVING ITS HEAD
            OFFICER AT 10, B.T.M SARANI, BRABOUNE ROAD, KOLKATA- 700001 AND
            CARRYING ON ITS BANKING BUSINESS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY
            THROUGH ITS DIVERSE BUSINESS AND IN PARTICULAR BRANCH AT
            DHEKIAJULI, P.O. DHEKIAJULI, DIST.- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN- 784110 REP.
            BY ITS SENIOR MANAGER

            2:DEBTS RECOVERY OFFICER
             DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT GUWAHATI
            ASSAM
             PIN- 78100

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. P MAHANTA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC. UCO BANK
                                                                            Page No.# 2/3


                                  BEFORE
                       HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                   HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

                                        ORDER

Date : 04-11-2022 R.M. Chhaya, C.J.

Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent bank, who appears on receipt of advance copy of the petition.

By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constituion of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief;

"In these premises aforesaid, it is therefore prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue rule, calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus and/or certiorari should not be issued as prayed for.

And to show cause as to why the proclamation of sale issued by the Respondent no.2, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati dated 22/8/2022 in connection with OA No.188/2021 UCO Bank -vs- Dhekiajuli Samabai Kala Mandir ltd. for recovery of Rs.36,75,076 (thirty six lacs seventy five thousands seventy six rupees) along with the interest from the e-auction sale of mortgaged property of the petitioner schedule to be held on 11/11/2022 by fixing the deposing of earnest money on or before 4/11/2022 should not be set aside and quashed.

And to show cause as to why a direction should not be issued directing the respondents to stall the proclamation of sale notice dated 22/8/2022 issued by the respondent no.2 fixing the e-auction on 11/11/2022 for a moment, maximum period of 3 months to mobilise the fund by the petitioner to satisfy the certificate amount.

And after entering of the parties cause and causes being shown your Page No.# 3/3

lordships may be pleased to pass such other order/orders as your lordships may deem fit and proper.

And in interim, pending disposal of this petition your lordships may be pleased to stay the execution of proclamation of sale notice issued by the Recovery officer, debts Recovery tribunal, Guwahati dated 22/8/2022 in connection with OA no.188/2011 UCO bank -vs- Dhekiajuli samabai kala mandir ltd. for recovery of Rs.36,75,076 (thirty six lacs seventy five thousands seventy six rupees)."

Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has shown willingness to pay the debts for which three months' time be granted. It is quite clear from the factual matrix which can be carved out from the records of the petition, that the petitioner has come on the eve of the mortgaged property being put to auction. Only because thrice the auction proceedings have not culminated into any recovery, the petitioner as a principal borrower does not get any inherent right to throttle the same by filing such petition. Even the contention raised by Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner intends to pay the debts appears to be far from truth from the conduct of the petitioner. We do not find any reason to interfere with the recovery proceedings initiated by the bank almost 8 years of the passing of the judgment by the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the year 2014. No case for interference is made out. We do not find that this case is fit to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

This petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

            JUDGE                              CHIEF JUSTICE

Comparing Assistant