Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Pinterest Interior Studio And ... vs Bank Of Baroda And Others on 9 August, 2024
Author: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal
CWP-19284-2024
2024 (O&M)
Sr. No.104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-19284
19284-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 09.08.2024
M/s Pinterest Interior Studio and another
...Petitioners
Versus
Bank of Baroda and others ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDE
ANUPINDER SINGH
GREWAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present :
Mr. Rose Gupta, Advocate,
Ms. Garima Modi, Advocate,
Mr. Parambir Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
***
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)
(Oral
The petitioner has challenged the sale deed dated 27.06.2024
(Annexure P-19)
19) executed by respondent No.2 in favour of respondent
No.3.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is
ready to pay the outstanding amount and, therefore, the sale deed be set
aside. He has also relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of
'Surinder
Surinder Pal Singh Vs. Vijaya Bank and others' and drawn the attention
of this Court
urt to para No.12 of the judgment.
3. Heard.
4. The petitioner had availed a cash credit facility for an amount
of Rs.50 lakhs in the year 2021 and a term loan facility for an amount of
Rs.25 lakhs on 08.10.2021. He had executed the loan documents in fav
favour
of the Bank. Copy of the hypothecation agreement is annexed at Annexure
P-3.
3. Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was issued to the
petitioner on 17.10.2023 wherein the outstanding amount was
Rs.47,15,124/--.. Notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued on
CWP-19284-2024
2024 (O&M)
28.03.2024. Replication was filed and proceedings before the District
Magistrate are pending.
5. The property is stated to have been put to auction on
15.05.2024 and the sale certificate has been issued on 27.06.2024 in favour
of respondent No.4.
6. Petitioner is stated to have paid only an amount of Rs.3 lakhs
in pursuance to the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act against an
amount of Rs.47,15,124
47,15,124/-.
7. We are of the considered view that the reliance of the learned
counsel
unsel for the petitioner on the judgment in the case of Surinder Pal
Singh (supra) is wholly misconceived inasmuch as in that case, the
borrower had paid the auction amount and had been issued a 'No objection
Certificate' and the possession of the premises had remained with the
borrower. It was in those circumstances that the Apex Court had passed an
order directing the redemption of the mortgage and the bank was directed to
pay the entire amount of auction money along with accrued interest to the
auction purchaser
urchaser and borrower was also directed to pay the compensation.
In the instant case, it is reiterated that the petitioner has paid only the paltry
amount of 3 lakhs in pursuance to the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act
against a sum of Rs.47,15,124/-.
Rs. The property had been put to auction and
the sale certificate has also been issued and it seems that this petition is
without any merit and dismissed accordingly.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
JUDGE
August 09,, 2024
vandana
Whether
hether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
