Allowed

Ravi Gupta v. Union of India and 3 Others

Allahabad HC4 Nov 2022WRIC/26014/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition noting that the bank loan account had been settled under the One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme via Lok Adalat. The Court held that once settled, no encumbrance remains over the secured asset and directed the bank to issue a No-objection certificate within one week.

What did the court decide?

Directing the bank to provide a No-objection certificate to the petitioner within one week of receiving the certified copy of the order.

Ravi Gupta Vs Union of India and 3 Others — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26014 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Ravi Gupta Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikrant Pandey,Satyadeep Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Alok Kumar Yadav,Satish Chaturvedi

¶4

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.

¶5

Impleadment Application

¶6

Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned Advocate has filed impleadment application on behalf of the auction purchaser in whose favour the bid was accepted on 20.1.2010. It is admitted fact of the matter that the total amount of the auction money has not been deposited by the auction purchaser and the auction sale has not been confirmed.

¶7

In view of the said fact, we find that the auction purchaser is neither necessary nor proper party in the present petition.

¶8

The impleadment application is rejected, accordingly.

¶9

Writ Petition

¶10

Sri Sumit Kakkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank has provided a copy of the letter dated 15.10.2022 written to the auction purchaser asking him to approach the bank on or before 30.10.2022 for refund of 25% of the auction money deposited by him.

¶11

It is informed by the respondent bank that the auction purchaser has not yet approached the bank concerned for refund of 25% of the bid money.

¶12

Taking note of the fact noted in the order dated 12.10.2022 passed by us, that One Time Settlement(OTS) scheme had been arrived between the borrower and the respondent-bank and the entire outstanding loan had been deposited by the petitioner in the Lok Adalat, after auction was held on 20.1.2010. We may also take note of the fact that the petitioner herein had filed Original Suit No. 721 of 2009 wherein an interim injunction order was passed on 20.7.2009, whereunder the bank and its officers were restrained from making auction of the property in dispute and the interim order was operating on the date of auction i.e. 20.1.2010. We find that the auction sale held on 20.1.2010 could not be finalized in view of the above interim

¶13

injunction passed by the Civil Court prior to the date of the auction.

¶14

It has also been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the auction purchasers who sought impleadment in this petition, has also been impleaded in the pending suit.

¶15

Be that as it may, the dispute relates to the outstanding dues,with respect to which the property in question has been attached as secured asset, and the same has been settled between the guarantor and the secured creditor with the deposit of the entire outstanding loan under OTS scheme in the Lok Adalat. The bank has rightly asked the auction purchaser to take back 25% of the auction money and it is upon the purchaser to receive 25% of the bid amount or raise objection but the bank is under obligation to give No-objection to the borrower with respect to the secured asset. Once the loan account has been settled between the parties under the OTS scheme, no encumbrance can be kept over the secured asset.

¶16

We, therefore, direct that the bank shall provide No-objection to the petitioner with respect to the loan account-in-question, within one week from today on receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶17

The writ petition is allowed , accordingly.

¶18

Order Date :- 4.11.2022 P.P.

¶19

Digitally signed by POONAM PATEL Date: 2022.11.09 17:21:53 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ravi Gupta v. Union of India and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Gupta v. Union of India and 3 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

Munni Lal Yadav Vs District Magistrate and 2 Others

M/S Chanda Construction and Traders and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Smt. Urmila Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and Others

Shirish Kumar Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Pooran Chand and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vishwas Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another