CHHATTiSGARH. BiLASPUR <i» W.P.fONo.…
withdrawal of writ petition permitted with liberty to file representation
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
61
KiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH. BiLASPUR
W.P.fONo. 930/2011
PETiTiONER
Birendra Kumar Marbie, S/o. Arnrika Prasad, aged about 40years, R/o F.1arble Provisfons Store, Scfence Coiiege, New Sabji Mandi, Biiaspur (C.G.)
VERSUS
RcSPONDENT
Union of Bank of india, Through: Branch Manager, Bilaspur Branch, near D.P. Vipra College, 0!c! High Court Road, Bilaspur (C.G.)
WRiT PETiTIONUNDERARTICi-E 228 OF THE CONSTiTUTiON OF JNDiA
<i»
ADDcarance;
Mrs. Naushina Aii, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.K. Vyas, Advocate for the respondent-
ORAL ORDER
(08.03.2011)
SUNit KUSViARSiNHA,J.
Heard.
Learned counsei for the petitioner submits that after issuance of notice under Section 13(2) ofthe Seciiritization and ReconsJTucfion of Financiai Assets and Enforcement of Securifr^ interest Act, 2002, the petitioner had raised objection, but, vnthout declding the objection, the respondent proceeded to take the recqurse -f ofsub-section (4) ofSection 13.
Mr. Vyas submits that according to the ofRce records of the respondent, no such representation, as fiied aiong with the writ petition, was filed before the respondent, therefore, the respondent has initiated the proceedings of sub-section 4 of Section 13, of Act, 2002.
Mrs. Naushina Aii, tearned counse! appearing on behaif of the petitioner, subrnits that ttie petitioneris inciined to repaythe outstanding ofloan butheis not in a position to make the entire payrnent at a giance. She su'omits that she may be permitted to vvithQ'ravi/ this wrii petition with liberty to the petiiioner to file a representation before the respondent, making offer to pay substantiai amount by first instaliment.
©s-
<ss-»
"%-
W.P. I'ONo. 990/201
Mr. Vyas submitsthat if such a representation isfiied, the respondent would consider and decide the samein accordance 'with law.
Permission granted.
The writ petiiion is permitted to be withdrawn with- the aforesaid iiberty granted in favour of the petitioner.
The writ petition stands finaiiy disposed of.
Certified copy as per ruies.
SAI'«rS^ ^cviw §w)w"3uASe
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Birendra Kumar Marbie
Union of India
Sunil Kusumarsingh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
