Dismissed

Dipika Bora v. the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Apr 2018WP(C)/1926/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition, filed by a guarantor seeking a direction to settle a loan account with Assam Gramin Vikash Bank based on a settlement offer, was dismissed. The Court held that settlement decisions remain within the bank's prerogative.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's request for a direction to the Bank to accept the settlement offer was dismissed. Liberty granted to the Bank to consider any subsequent offer without it being a direction from the Court.

Dipika Bora Vs the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank and 2 Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Gauhati HC (2018)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010059822018

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

¶5

1:DIPIKA BORA

¶6

W/O- SRI HIRANYA BORA, R/O- H NO. 36, TARUN NAGAR, BYE LANE -4, GUWAHATI- 05, DIST- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

1:THE ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK AND 2 ORS

¶9

REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, G S ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI- 781005

¶10

2:THE REGIONAL MANAGER ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK G S ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- 781005

¶11

3:THE CHIEF MANAGER ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK GANESHGURI BRANCH DISPUR GUWAHATI- 0

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S CHETIA

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶14

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

¶15

BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJIT SINGH

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)

¶18

Date : 09-04-2018

¶19

(AM Bujor Barua, J.)

¶20

Heard Mr. A. Goyal learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents inasmuch as, the matter has been given a final consideration at the motion stage itself, without issuing notice.

¶21

The petitioner stood a guarantor to a loan of Rs.2,50,00,000/- given by the Ganeshguri Branch of the respondent Assam Gramin Vikash Bank to M/s Pee Bee & Associates, being proprietary a firm of one Mr. Pradip Bhuyan, which was engaged in the business of manufacturing of steel.

¶22

The said loanee had defaulted in payment of the loan obtained from the respondent Bank and as a consequence, as per the petitioner, the amount payable as on 27.09.2016 was Rs.2,98,73,822/-. But however, a notice under Section 13(2) read with Section13(13) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 25.05.2015 was issued requiring the petitioner to discharge the full liability amounting to Rs.3,16,32,131/-.

¶23

Although no such reply of the petitioner against the notice dated 25.05.2015 is available on record, but however, Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to certain subsequent communications from the petitioner dated 03.07.2017, 29.07.2017, 13.11.2017 and 06.01.2018 by which, various amounts were offered by the petitioner to the respondent Bank towards mitigating the liability of the loan. While the communication of 10.07.2017 offered a proposal of Rs.2,20,00,000/-, the later communication of 06.01.2018 had increased the offer upto Rs.2,80,00,000/-.

¶24

It is in the aforesaid circumstance, this writ petition is preferred for a direction to the respondent Bank to settle the loan account of M/s Pee Bee & Associates in terms of the communication dated 06.01.2018.

¶25

This Court is of the view that to consider or not to consider the settlement of a loan as per the offer contained in the communication dated 06.01.2018 is the prerogative of the respondent Bank and it is more so, in view of the fact that the notice dated 25.05.2015 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 demands an amount of Rs.3,16,32,131/- in the year 2015

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

itself.

¶28

In such circumstance, we find the petition to be devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶29

But however, it is provided that the dismissal of the writ petition may not stand as a bar on the part of the respondent Bank to consider any offer made by the petitioner, but at the same time, it is further provided that such liberty be not construed to be a direction by this Court requiring the respondent Bank to consider any such proposal.

¶30

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Dipika Bora v. the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipika Bora v. the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank and 2 Ors.

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

Apurba Ballav Goswami Vs the Union of India and 9 Ors.

Prosenjit Dey Laskar Vs the Debt Recovery Tribunal (Drt) and 5 Ors.

MD Abdul Khalek Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.