Jharkhand High Court
Shyam Prasad vs The State Of Jharkhand & Ors on 7 September, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.830 of 2021
Shyam Prasad ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. .... .... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Diwakar Upadhyay, Advocate
For the Res. Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. Debarshi Mondal, A.C. to Sr. S.C. I
For the Res. Nos. 3 & 4 : Ms. Amrita Sinha, Advocate
--------
02/07.09.2021 The present writ petition is taken up today through Video
conferencing.
The case of the petitioner is that he preferred an appeal under
Section 18 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 before the Debts
Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (in short "DRAT, Allahabad")
against the order dated 23rd August, 2012 passed by the Debts Recovery
Tribunal, Ranchi (in short "DRT, Ranchi"). The said appeal was registered
as Appeal (T) No.34 of 2013 and was finally disposed of vide order dated
21st October, 2019, whereby the said impugned order passed by DRT,
Ranchi was set aside and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was
allowed. The operative part of the judgment dated 21st October, 2019
passed by the DRAT, Allahabad reads as under:
"Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order
dated 23.08.2012 is set aside. The proceedings of the Bank from
the stage of possession notice and all subsequent actions are
quashed and set aside. The Bank shall return the sale price to the
auction purchaser within one month alongwith interest at the rate
of 8% per annum simple from the date of deposit till the payment
and Rs.1.00 lac as compensation. The appellant/borrower may
clear entire dues of the Bank within one month from today to
redeem the property, failing which the Bank shall be free to take
further steps qua the sale of the property in question from the
stage of symbolic possession, in accordance with law."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main reason for
filing the present writ petition is that even after losing the said appeal
before the DRAT, Allahabad, the respondent - Bank has raised arbitrary
demand against the petitioner as would be evident from letter dated 16 th
November, 2019 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) issued by the Branch
Manager, Indian Bank, Deoghar Branch - the respondent no.4 directing
the petitioner to pay Rs.52,17,031/- (calculated up to 20th November,
2019). The said amount was further reduced and the petitioner was
directed to pay Rs.37,67,517/- vide subsequent letter dated 18th March,
2020 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no.4. It
is further submitted that the respondent no.4 has issued letter dated 5th
January, 2021 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) to the petitioner
directing him to vacate the property in question.
Ms. Amrita Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent nos.3 and 4 submits that the demand raised vide letter dated
16th November, 2019 is justified. So far as the issuance of demand vide
letter dated 18th March, 2020 is concerned, the same has been arrived at
after deducting the amount already paid by the petitioner towards his
loan account. She, however, prays for and is allowed four weeks' time to
seek instruction and file counter affidavit.
In view of the said prayer, put up this case under appropriate
heading on 27th October, 2021.
Till then, the petitioner shall not be evicted from the property in
question.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Rohit
