Moonlight Marble Private Ltd vs Union Bank Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 223 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 323/2021

Moonlight Marble Private Ltd., Badarda, Tehsil And District Rajsamand, Through Its Director Ashok Kumar Jain S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Jain, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Kishore Nagar, Dayalshah, Kila Road, Rajsamand (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

1. Union Bank Of India, Having Regional Office At 446, Bhupalpura Main Road, Near Shastri Circle, Udaipur, Rajasthan Through Authorized Officer

2. Union Bank Of India, Having Branch Office At Opposite Gandhi Seva Sadan, Kishore Nagar, Raj Nagar, Rajsamand (Rajasthan) Through Authorized Officer

3. The District Magistrate, Rajsamand (Rajasthan)

4. The District Collector, Rajsamand.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Deelip Kawadia (through VC)
For Respondent(s)        :



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                         Judgment / Order

07/01/2021

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a

prayer that the respondent bank authority be directed to release

the property in question situated in Araji No. 1434/1281 of village

Badarda, Tehsil & District Rajsamand on the ground that the said

property was never mortgaged to the bank against the loan facility

availed by the petitioner-firm.

The petitioner-firm is claiming that for the purpose of getting

loan facility from the respondent bank, the petitioner-firm has

mortgaged property situated in Araji Nos. 1278, 1279, 1280,

(2 of 3) [CW-323/2021]

1281, 1282, 1283, 1303 and 1304 of village Badarda, Tehsil &

District Rajsamand. As the petitioner-firm has failed to repay the

loan as per the schedule, the bank initiated proceedings against

the petitioner-firm under Section 13 (2) of the Secruitization &

Reconstruction of Financial & Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002 and approached the District Collector, Rajsamand, who vide

order dated 10.12.2019 has ordered for seizing the property

mortgaged by the petitioner against availing loan facility from the

respondent bank.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that

though the property of the petitioner situated in Araji No.

1434/1281 of village Badarda, Tehsil & District Rajsamand was not

mortgaged with the bank, but the respondent bank has illegally

seized the said property in the garb of order passed by the District

Magistrate, Rajsamand dated 10.12.2019. Learned counsel for the

petitioner has further submitted that he has submitted the

representation to the bank authority to release the property

situated in Araji No. 1434/1281 of village Badarda, Tehsil &

District Rajsamand but the respondent bank authority has refused

to release the same on the pretext that the petitioner has failed to

produce any title in respect of the said property exist in his favour.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, submitted that a

direction be issued to the bank authority to release the property

situated in Araji No. 1434/1281 and not to take any coercive

action in respect of the said property against the petitioner-firm.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through

the material available on record.

In response to the letter written by the petitioner-firm to the

respondent bank, a reply to the same was given on 11.11.2020 by

(3 of 3) [CW-323/2021]

the respondent- bank, copy of which is annexed with this writ

petition as Annex.-10. In reply, the respondent bank has clearly

stated that they have not seized any other property, which is not

part of the seizure order passed by the District Magistrate on

10.12.2019. It is also specifically asserted that the bank has no

relation with the property situated in Araji No. 1434/1281 of

village Badarda, Tehsil & District Rajsamand. It is further asserted

that the office of the petitioner firm is situated in the property

mortgaged with the bank and not on any other property. The bank

has further asserted that they have attached/seized only those

properties, which found place in the order of the District

Magistrate dated 10.12.2019.

Having gone through the reply of the bank Annex.-10, this

Court is of the view that there is factual dispute involved in this

writ petition, which cannot be decided in the absence of evidence

and such disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated by this

court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article

226 of the Constitution of India.

Hence, no case for interference by this Court is made out in

this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

Surabhii/85-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)