Disposed

M/S Prasad Office Automation Pvt.Ltd and Another v. Uco Bank and 2 Others

Allahabad HC21 Sept 2023WRIC/29674/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition seeking quashing of SARFAESI notices. Instead of quashing, the court allowed the petitioners an opportunity to pay the outstanding debt in four instalments. If the undertaking is not honoured, the bank is free to recover the debt.

What did the court decide?

Order affording an opportunity to clear debt in 25% upfront payment followed by three equal monthly instalments; adjudication deferred pending compliance.

M/S Prasad Office Automation Pvt.Ltd and Another Vs… — Specific Performance | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:182897-DB

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29674 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S Prasad Office Automation Pvt.Ltd And Another Respondent :- Uco Bank And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Diwan Saifullah Khan Counsel for Respondent :- Ajay Shankar

¶5

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

¶6

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the impugned notice dated 27.4.2023 issued by Respondent no. 2 under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) demanding Rs. 33,79,459.32/- and also prayed for quashing of the notice dated 26.7.2023 issued under Section 13(4) of said Act which is for taking possession of mortgaged property.

¶7

Learned counsel submits that the petitioners obtained cash credit of Rs. 30 lakhs from UCO Bank, Mumfordganj, Prayagraj on 26.10.2016 and they had also mortgaged a property bearing House No. 785/2/1B/2K (Arazi No. 1616, 1618, 1619, 1620), Kasari Masari, Plot No. 5, Beniganj, Allahabad owned by the borrowers. 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 27.4.2023 under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act and demanded a sum of Rs. 33,79,459.32/ alongwith interest and other charges. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the impugned notice dated 26.7.2023 and asserted that the Bank has taken symbolic possession of the mortgaged property and it makes clear that the Bank would be taking further steps to recover the dues by auctioning the mortgaged property.

¶8

At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioners has proposed to deposit 25% 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 26.7.2023, no auction proceedings have been fixed. He further does not oppose the prayer and stated that if the borrowers are ready and willing to clear the debt in installments, the outstanding debt be directed to be paid with up-to-date interest.

¶10

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 borrowers to clear the debt in installments i.e., by depositing 25% of the outstanding amount within a period of one month from today, and the remaining amount be paid in three equal monthly installments.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 21.9.2023 S.K.S.

¶15

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

M/S Prasad Office Automation Pvt.Ltd and Another v. Uco Bank and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Prasad Office Automation Pvt.Ltd and Another v. Uco Bank 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

Yogesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs Union of India and 2 Others

Jaybun Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Nitin Kumar Jaiswal Vs Union of India and 6 Others