WPMS/308/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 270 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                         AT NAINITAL
     ON THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
                               BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


     WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 308 of 2022


BETWEEN:
     Shree Enterprises Partnership Firm
                                                          .......Petitioner
     (By Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Shubhang
     Dobhal, Advocate)


AND:
     District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar & others
                                                       .....Respondents
     (By Mr. Narain Dutt, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent
     nos. 1 & 4 & Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3)



                               JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

2. Petitioner took a loan from Bank of India, Sitarganj Branch, District Udham Singh Nagar. Since petitioner could not re-pay the loan in time, therefore, respondent-bank has initiated recovery proceedings by invoking provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.06.2021 passed under Section 13 (4) and order dated 30.11.2021 passed under Section 14 of Securitization

and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner had submitted a proposal for one time settlement to the respondent-bank on 01.02.2022, however, no decision has been taken thereupon.

4. This fact has been disputed by Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the Bank of India, who submits that on 07.02.2022, the Chief Manager, Bank of India wrote a letter to the petitioner asking him to submit complete proposal for one time settlement within five days, but despite such letter, petitioner did not submit the complete proposal, therefore, no progress could be made in the matter.

5. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner then submits that petitioner be granted a week's time to submit the complete proposal for one time settlement. He assures the Court that petitioner will indicate the modalities of payment under one time settlement.

6. Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank submits that if petitioner submits the complete proposal for one time settlement within one week from today, the competent authority in bank shall consider the same and pass appropriate order, as per law, within one week thereafter.

7. Having regard to the willingness shown by the petitioner to settle the dispute, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to submit complete proposal for one time settlement. If such proposal is submitted within one week from today, then the competent authority in the bank shall consider the same and pass appropriate order, as per law, within one week thereafter.

8. For a period of two weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against petitioner, however, if petitioner fails to submit proposal within one week from today, then petitioner shall not be entitled to protection of this order and the respondent-Bank shall be at liberty to proceed in the matter, in accordance with law.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Navin