The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging physical possession attempts under SARFAESI Act, 2002. The court held that the petitioners had given an undertaking to pay the loan amount by 16.12.2017, a fact they failed to disclose in the petition.
Writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 62757 of 2017
Petitioner :- Sanjeev Tomar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Varun Dev Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and on the basis of the instructions received by Sri Satish Chaturvedi, the learned counsel for respondent no.3, we find that pursuant to an order dated 14.1.2016, passed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the respondents are trying to take physical possession. The petitioners gave an undertaking on 8.12.2017 that they would pay the entire loan amount by 16.12.2017. When this fact was brought to the knowledge of the learned counsel for the petitioners, he candidly admitted that the petitioners had given such undertaking. Such facts has not been depicted in the writ petition. Consequently, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 3.1.2018 AKJ
(Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) (Tarun Agarwala,J.)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sanjeev Tomar and Another
State of U.P.
4 Others
Tarun Agarwala
Saumitra Dayal Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
