Dismissed

M/S Ekta Agencies and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC28 Sept 2020WRIC/12278/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioners challenged a bank demand notice as illegal. The Court found that the notice issued pursuant to the SARFAESI Act was valid as the petitioners defaulted despite a prior specific order. The Court held alternative remedies existed and declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 was exercised.

M/S Ekta Agencies and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 47

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12278 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Ekta Agencies And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Omkar Dutt Malviya,Anant Ram Dube

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vijay Prakash Mishra

¶5

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Vijay Prakash Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1.

¶7

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned demand notice issued by the respondent no.2 is per se illegal as the petitioners have been continuously depositing the installment of loan to the bank. The impugned notice indicates that the petitioners are required to deposit an amount of Rs.17,09,302/- besides other charges and interest with effect from 1.3.2020 whereas the petitioners had taken loan of Rs.4 lacs on 28.3.2003 in pursuance of an agreement under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). On receipt of the impugned notice, the petitioners have already moved an application requesting the bank to close the account and to issue no dues certificate. However, in an arbitrary manner the impugned notice has been issued against the petitioners indicating outstanding dues of Rs.17,09,302/plus other charges and interest to be paid within 15 days from the date of notice dated 1.3.2020. Hence the aforesaid notice is liable to be quashed.

¶8

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 &2 have contended that the impugned notice dated 17.3.2020 is not a demand notice and the same is the reminder of the bank giving the statement of account whereby the petitioners have paid certain amount of installment and thereafter defaulted despite specific order was passed by this Court on 13.4.2006 in pursuance of the proceeding initiated under Section 13(2) of the Act. The order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition which has not been complied by the petitioners.

¶9

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners had made default in making payment as directed by

¶10

this Court, hence the instant notice has been issued asking the petitioners to clear the outstanding dues in terms and conditions executed between the parties. The said order also indicates that if the petitioners commit any default the order shall automatically stand vacated and the petitioners may seek their remedy as available in law, if they are aggrieved by miscalculation in the statement of account.

¶11

In such circumstances, the petitioners may avail alternative remedy as prescribed under the law for the resolution of dispute towards the recovery of outstanding dues and other charges and interest, as such the petitioners do not deserve any indulgence..

¶12

For the aforesaid reasons, we decline to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

The petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

No order as to cost.

¶15

Order Date :- 28.9.2020 M. Tariq

M/S Ekta Agencies and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ekta Agencies and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khalil Ahmad Vs State of U.P. through D.M. and 2 Others

Sarwan Kumar Jaiswal Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Ramesh Chandra Yadav Vs Union of India and 2 Others