Disposed

M/S Arkey Glass Works v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Aug 2018WRIC/28746/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, specifically a possession notice under Section 13(4). The Court directed the Bank that no coercive action be taken for one month if the petitioner's objection under Section 13(3-A) was not yet decided.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Bank for one month to take no coercive action against the petitioner unless the objection under Section 13(3-A) is decided.

M/S Arkey Glass Works Vs State of U P and 3 Others — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 38

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28746 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S Arkey Glass Works Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Garg Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶5

By means of this writ petition the petitioner has come to this Court challenging the recovery proceedings issued under the SARFAESI Act as well as possession notice under Section 13(4).

¶6

The petitioner had taken a loan of Rs.68,70,000/- in the year 2015. Although, the petitioner deposited some amount, further defaulted in repayment of E.M.I. and, therefore, he has been served notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner filed an objection to the proceedings that has been initiated to secure possession of the asset. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.4024 of 2015 wherein it has been held that proceedings under Section 13(4) cannot be initiated unless objection of the petitioner against Section 13(2) is decided.

¶7

At this stage, it would be appropriate to direct the Bank that in case the objection filed by the petitioner under Section 13(3-A) is not decided, no further proceedings be initiated against the petitioner. However, the Bank may proceed against the petitioner in case his objection u/s 13(3-A) has already been decided.

¶8

Accordingly, we direct that for a period of one month, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in case the objection filed by the petitioner has not been decided. In case such application is pending, the same may be considered and decided in accordance with law within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶9

With the aforesaid observation, this writ petition is disposed of.

¶10

Order Date :- 24.8.2018 L.F./10

¶11

(Rajiv Gupta) (Abhinava Upadhya)

M/S Arkey Glass Works v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Arkey Glass Works v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagtar Singh and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Others

Jagdish Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Manoj Kumar Pal and Another Vs State of U.P. and Others

M/S Guru Kripa Enterprises Vs Punjab National Bank and Another

Kartar Singh Vs Chief General Manager Head Branch State Bank of India and 2 Others

Seema Tripathi and Another Vs Central Bank of India and Another