Disposed

Manorma Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jan 2023WRIC/1937/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition seeking quashing of a notice under the SARFAESI Act. The Court settled the dispute by directing the petitioners to repay the loan in installments and the Bank to restore possession upon full clearance.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed by directing deposit of Rs. 3.5 lakhs within a week and remaining amount within 30 days; possession to be restored on full payment.

Manorma Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1937 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Manorma Devi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Kumar Shukla

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶5

The instant petition has been filed praying for quashing of the notice date 22.11.2022 issued by respondent no.3 to ensure compliance of the order dated 21.07.2020 passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶6

It is not disputed that the petitioners have taken loan from the respondent-Bank and the house in respect of which impugned order has been passed was mortgaged with the respondent-Bank by way of security for the loan advanced. The petitioners also do not dispute that they have defaulted in repayment of the loan and that possession of the house has already been delivered to the Bank in compliance of the impugned order.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready to deposit the entire amount in installments. He states that they will deposit Rs.3.5 lakhs within a week with the respondent-Bank and the remaining amount within next one month and prays that the respondents be directed to restore possession of the mortgaged property to the petitioners.

¶8

Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondentBank, on instructions, states that the Bank is ready to accept the money as proposed by the petitioner. He further states that the possession of the mortgaged asset will be restored to the petitioner as soon as they clear the dues of the Bank.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners is agreeable to the said proposal.

¶10

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of as follows:-

¶11

(a) The petitioners will deposit Rs.3.5 lakhs with the respondent-Bank within one week from today and the remaining amount within next 30 days.

¶12

(b) As soon as the entire amount is paid, the Bank will restore possession of the house to the petitioners.

¶13

¶14

transferred in any manner in favour of any person.

¶15

In case of default, the instant order will stand discharged automatically and it shall be open to the respondent-Bank to proceed further in accordance with law.

¶16

(Vikram D. Chauhan, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 20.1.2023 SL

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SHYAM LAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Manorma Devi and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manorma Devi and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saroj and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

M/S Madhav Metal Industries and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt.Namrata Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Naseem Ahmad @ Mohd.Naseem Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rubeena Fatima Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Akhilesh Kumar Vs State of U P and 3 Others