Sharanjeet Singh vs State Bank Of India And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 21799 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sharanjeet Singh vs State Bank Of India And Anr on 13 December, 2023

Author: Lisa Gill

Bench: Lisa Gill

CWP-10091-2022 (O&M) 2023: PHHC:160407-DB 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

(234) CWP-10091-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 13.12.2023

Sharanjeet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus

State Bank of India and another ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE

Present: Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Chandeep Singh, Advocate
for the respondent-Bank.

eK

LISA GILL, J (ORAL)

1. Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside notice(s) dated 16.08.2021 (Annexure P-1) under Section 13 (2) and notice dated 17.11.2021 (Annexure P-2) under Section 13 (4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act'). Further prayer is for directing respondent-Bank to consider petitioner's representation/proposal dated 29.04.2022 (Annexure P-3) for settlement wherein petitioner had sought six months to clear overdue amount and thereafter to deposit Rs.10,000/-

regularly.

2. Admittedly, loan facility had been availed of by petitioner from the respondent-Bank. Due to financial indiscipline, proceedings under

SARFAESI Act were initiated against the petitioner. It is submitted that

CWP-10091-2022 (O&M) 2023: PHHC:160407-DB 2

loan account of petitioner was incorrectly declared NPA on 26.07.2021 and notice(s) as above were issued.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently argues that valuation of the property i.e. residential house of petitioner has not been carried out in a proper fashion. Said property has been undervalued. There is no basis for reduction of value of the property as has been done by respondent-Bank. It is thus prayed that this writ petition be allowed.

4. Learned counsel for respondent while raising preliminary objection regarding entertainability of writ petition submits that entire proceedings under SARFAESI Act have been taken in accordance with provisions of statute and rules framed thereunder. He further submits that petitioner has no intention to clear dues towards respondent-Bank and is only interested in creating hurdles in the process of recovery. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent-Bank that as and when auction shall be conducted, fresh valuation of the property would be carried out in accordance with law. Dismissal of writ petition is sought.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. We have gone through the file with their able assistance.

6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above and in

view of categoric judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union Bank

of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010 (8) SCC 110,

Varimadugu Obi Reddy vs. B. Sreenivasulu_and_ others, 2023 (1)

R.C.R. (Civil) 34, and M/s South Indian Bank Ltd. and others vs.

Naveen Mathew Philip and others, 2023 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 771, we find

no ground whatsoever to interfere in this matter in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for

petitioner is unable to point out any extraordinary or exceptional

CWP-10091-2022 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:160407-DB 3

circumstance which calls for interference by this Court. Admittedly, petitioner has an efficacious remedy for redressal of grievance as sought to be raised in this writ petition. It is informed that physical possession of the property has since been taken on 24.05.2022.

7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to avail statutory remedy/ies available to him in accordance with law. There is no expression

of opinion on merits of the matter.

8. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.

(LISA GILL) JUDGE (RITU TAGORE) JUDGE December 13, 2023 Manpreet Whether speaking/reasoned --:: Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No