Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1520/2021 on 5 August, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
sl. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No.1520 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Via video conferencing).
Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. V.D. Bisen, Brief Holder, for the
State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos.1 & 4.
Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate, for
the respondent Nos.2 & 3.
It is not in controversy that the petitioner
was a borrower of the loan amount from the
respondent Bank, as against the two Accounts
bearing A/C Nos.918030057361616 and
918030057361645, respectively, as against the
financial advances extended to the petitioner by
the respondent Bank, against the aforesaid two
loan accounts.
Since there was a default committed by
the petitioner the account was declared as NPA,
the respondent Bank has initiated the
proceedings by issuing the notices under the
Securitisation Act, and as per the impugned
order, which has been put to challenge by the
petitioner, it rather reflects that the proceedings
initiated under Section 13 (2) of the
Securitisation Act, have reached up to the
proceedings under Section 14 of the
Securitisation Act, and the possession of the
property has also been taken, as per the
procedure contemplated under Rule 8 of the
Rules, which was framed under the Act.
The matter was taken up on the first call.
Since the petitioner had expressed his
willingness to discharge his loan liability, this
Court has requested the learned Counsel for the
respondent Bank Mr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, to
complete his instructions, and make a
statement, based on instructions of bank, before
this Court, relegates the petitioner to approach
under Section 17 of the Securitisation Act,
before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
The matter was taken up in the revised
call, and on the basis of the statement made by
the learned counsel for the respondent Bank,
which was based, on the basis of the
instructions which was received by him, the
total amount, which the Bank has expressed,
and which falls due to be paid by the petitioner,
as of now, as against the aforesaid two loan
accounts, it is assessed and informed to be
about Rupees Fifty Seven Lakh Only. He
expressed that on the basis of the instructions
received from the Bank, the bank is willing to
adjust the aforesaid amount, to Rupees Fifty
Two Lakh Only. It would be now the actual
total amount, due to be paid by the petitioner to
the bank.
Learned counsel for the respondent bank
further submits that procedurally, in order to
bring the two loan accounts of the petitioner
outside the NPA (Non Performing Assets), the
petitioner is required to deposit an amount of
atleast Rupees Twenty Five Lakh, with the
bank forthwith, to which there is an opposition
by the petitioner's counsel on the ground that
looking to the financial constraints of the
petitioner, he will not be able to deposit the said
amount with the respondent bank.
This Court being conscious of its
limitation of fixing the instalments for loan
advances due to be paid, which is barred by the
judgment of the Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court, couple with the
restrictions which had been imposed by Section
17 of the Securitisation Act, while exercising
my powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, and on account of the fact
that the Bank, as well as the petitioner, had
expressed their willingness to settle the scores,
the petitioner is directed to initially deposit an
amount of Rupees Twenty Five Lakh only,
within a period of one month from today. The
balance amount due after the deposit of Rupees
Twenty Five Lakh, as directed above, the
balance amount due would be paid by the
petitioner in four equal instalments by 31st
March, 2022.
In view of the aforesaid settlement, and
the consensus, which has been arrived at
between the parties, on the basis of the proposal
extended by the Bank, since the respondent
No.1, has not yet activated its machinery to
recover the said amount, the respondent No.1,
would not be entitled to recover any recovery
charges, and the petitioner would be remitting
the amount in terms of the aforesaid direction to
the bank directly.
Subject to the above observations, the
writ petition stands disposed of.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
05.08.2021
NR/
