Disposed

Ajay Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Sept 2023WRIC/29611/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking quashing of an order authorizing possession under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, the court recorded the petitioner's undertaking to pay a partial sum. The court declined to examine merits, directed the bank to endorse the repayment schedule, and disposed of the petition subject to the petitioner's fulfillment.

What did the court decide?

The borrower was directed to pay Rs. 2 lakhs within one month and the balance in three installments; the bank was directed to inform interest accrued. If not met, the bank can proceed under the impugn

Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs Union of India and 2 Others — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182118-DB

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29611 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Mishra Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Singh,Ambuj Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Anadi Krishna Narayana,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 28.7.2023 passed by the Additional District Magistrate ( F & R), Jhansi by which orders have been passed under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 for taking possession of the security on the application of the Bank.

¶7

Learned counsel submits that a housing loan of Rs. 7,00,000/was taken by the petitioner on 24.4.2012 from Bank of Baroda, Branch Anita Talab, Jhansi They had also mortgaged a property bearing Chamber House No. 3/3/8 Room (First Floor only), Mouza Civil Lines (Near Kunj Bihari Mandir, Tehsil and District - Jhansi) owned by the borrower-petitioner. Learned counsel has further pointed out that when certain payments of the loan installments were not made, the creditor Bank initiated proceedings of recovery under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act) by issuing notice dated 6.2.2017 under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act and demanded a sum of Rs. 6,81,592/ alongwith interest and other charges. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the impugned notice dated 26.6.2019 and asserted that the Bank has taken symbolic possession of the mortgaged property and would be strongly taking further steps to recover the dues by auctioning the mortgaged property.

¶8

At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner has proposed to deposit rupees two lakhs of the outstanding amount within a period of one month from today, with an undertaking that the remaining amount shall be paid in next three equal monthly installments.

¶9

Learned counsel for the Bank does not dispute the fact that pursuant to the recovery proceedings including the impugned notice dated 26.6.2019, no auction proceedings have been fixed.

¶10

He further does not oppose the prayer and has finally stated that if the borrower is willing to clear the debt by paying rupees two lakhs of the outstanding amount within a period of one month from today, and remaining amount in next three equal monthly installments.

¶11

In view of the above stand of the learned counsel for the parties, at this stage, without looking into the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to afford an opportunity to the borrower to clear the debt by paying rupees two lakhs of the outstanding amount within a period of one month from today, and remaining amount in next three equal monthly installments, the outstanding debt be directed to be paid with up-to-date interest.

¶12

Needless to say that when the last installment is paid by the petitioner, the bank shall inform the petitioner the interest amount which would have accrued by the last date of payment and it shall be paid along with the last installment.

¶13

We clarify that, if, the amount as has been promised by the petitioner is not deposited as per the undertaking then the Bank shall be free to recover the debt pursuant to the impugned notice.

¶14

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 20.9.2023 S.K.S.

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ajay Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar Mishra v. Union of India and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saurabh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rakesh Kumar Mishra and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Harpali Vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dinesh Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mahendra Nath Seth Vs State of U.P. and Another