Disposed

Pradeep Kumar Bhuyan v. United Commercial Bank (Uco) and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 Dec 2019WP(C)/8857/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought time to repay a defaulted housing loan despite a notice to vacate. Bench declined to entertain writ petition due to existing statutory remedies but, for ends of justice, granted 15 days to request rephasing of loan.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted 15 days to seek rephasing of loan repayment schedule with 25% principal deposit; status quo maintained.

Pradeep Kumar Bhuyan Vs United Commercial Bank (Uco)… — Banking and Recovery | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010294552019

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C) 8857/2019

¶5

1:PRADEEP KUMAR BHUYAN S/O AMULYA BHUYAN, R/O VILL. FLAT NO. 501, 5TH FLOOR, ARUNA APARTMENT, SANTI PATH, R.G. BARUAH ROAD, GUWAHATI-24, P.S AND P.S. GEETANAGAR, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK (UCO) AND 3 ORS. REP. BY DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, GUWAHATI ZONE, SILPUKHURI, GUWAHATI-3

¶8

2:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER UCO BANK GUWAHATI ZONE SILPUKHURI GUWAHATI-3

¶9

3:THE ASSISTANT DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER UCO BANK GUWAHATI ZONE SILPUKHURI GUWAHATI-3

¶10

4:THE BRANCH MANAGER UCO BANK DISPUR BRANCH DISPUR GUWAHATI-

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J AHMED

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : SC. UCO BANK

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶15

ORDER

¶16

02.12.2019

¶17

Suman Shyam, J.

¶18

Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. We have also heard Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank.

¶19

The petitioner had availed a housing loan from the respondent Bank in

¶20

the year 2007 amounting to Rs.18,19,000/-. The monthly installment to repay the loan had been paid by the petitioner upto the year 2013 but thereafter when the petitioner had failed to pay installments, the loan account was declared as NPA. Thereafter, action was initiated by the Bank under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 whereby the petitioner was asked to vacate the house within 10 days of receipt of the notice. It is at this stage that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶21

Mr. Ahmed submits that his client is not denying the liability under the loan agreement and is ready and willing to pay the amount due from him, but due to acute financial crisis faced by him some more time is required to liquidate the loan.

¶22

This Court has noticed that the petitioner has an appellate remedy available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 against the notice issued under Section 13(2). Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. Mr. Ahmed submits that his client is only

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

seeking some time to repay the amount and the legality and validity of the notice is not questioned by the petitioner.

¶25

After the decision of United Bank of India Vs. Satyavati Tandon & others reported in (2010)8 SCC 110 law is settled that the writ court would not entertain these petitions where a proceeding for recovery of loan obtained from the public sector banks is under progress. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, taking note of the submission of Mr. Ahmed that the petitioner is ready and willing to repay the loan in a time bound manner if some rephasement of the repayment schedule is provided by the Bank, for ends of justice, we grant 15 days time from today to the petitioner to approach the Bank with such a request. If the request for rephasement of the repayment schedule is made by the petitioner within 15 days from today accompanied by deposit of 25% of the principal amount, the same may be considered objectively and the request be disposed of by the respondent bank, keeping in mind, the RBI guidelines applicable in that regard.

¶26

Till such time, status quo be maintained.

¶27

Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶28

JUDGE JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Pradeep Kumar Bhuyan v. United Commercial Bank (Uco) and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Kumar Bhuyan v. United Commercial Bank (Uco) and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sabed Ali Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Siddique Ali Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Lalchan Ali Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Chabiran Bibi Vs the Union of India and 6 Ors.

Sahera Bhanu @ Sahera Khatun Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Lal Bhanu Bibi Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.