Dismissed

M/S Dcb Bank v. State of Up and 7 Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024WRIC/8563/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a petition by a bank seeking police assistance to enforce a possession order under SARFAESI. The court held that proceeding against a deceased borrower precludes enforcement of the existing order, granting liberty to the bank to initiate fresh proceedings against legal heirs.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against legal heirs after notice to them.

M/S Dcb Bank vs State of Up and 7 Others — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:110202-DB

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8563 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S Dcb Bank Respondent :- State Of Up And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Sharma,Nitesh Kumar Jauhari Counsel for Respondent :- Aushim Luthra,C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-bank for a direction to respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 to provide police force to the petitioner-bank for taking possession of the security asset in compliance of order dated 26.08.2022 passed under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in Case No. 420 of 2022.

¶7

The petitioner is a secured creditor. It had extended financial assistance to respondents No. 4 to 8 which included respondent No. 6, Smt. Savita Tripathi. Since there was default in repayment of loan, therefore, the petitioner-bank had proceeded against the borrowers under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.

¶8

Smt. Savita Tripathi, respondent No. 6, had died on 24.06.2017 even before the account was classified as NPA (01.10.2018). The legal heirs of respondent No. 6 have since been substituted in her place and Shri Aushim Luthra, Advocate appearing on their behalf contends that because the proceedings had continued against a dead person, therefore, serious prejudice has been caused to the legal heirs.

¶9

Shri Ashutosh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶10

submits that the petitioner was not aware of the death of respondent No. 6. He submits that the bank will now initiate fresh proceedings.

¶11

Consequently, the petition for enforcement of order dated 26.08.2022 cannot be accepted and is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law.

¶12

Order Date :- 8.7.2024 Mukesh Kr.

¶13

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶14

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

M/S Dcb Bank v. State of Up and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Dcb Bank v. State of Up and 7 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

Karan Singh and 14 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others

Satya Pal Singh and 11 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others

Smt Rajkali and Another vs Union of India and 3 Others

Dr. Triveni Dutt vs Dhirendra Kumar

Mahendra Kumar vs State of Up and 5 Others

Om Prakash and Another vs National Highway Authority of India and 2 Others