Dismissed

Arin Ghosh v. the Union Bank of India and Anr.

Gauhati HC8 Mar 2021WP(C)/1532/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging a bank's refusal to grant a One Time Settlement. The court held that the matter involves loan recovery and is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, rendering the writ petition unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with observations that all points may be raised before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Arin Ghosh Vs the Union Bank of India and Anr. — Specific Performance | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/2

¶2

GAHC010017152021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1532/2021

¶5

ARIN GHOSH

¶6

S/O LATE DIPAK KUMAR GHOSH, R/O HOUSE NO. 20, DHIRENPARA, KALIMANDIR, GUWAHATI 25, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ANR

¶9

REPRESENTED BY CHIEF MANAGER, UNION BANK BHAWAN 239 VIDHAN BHAWAN MARG, NIERMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400021

¶10

2:THE BRANCH MANAGER

¶11

UNION BANK OF INDIA BASISTHA ROAD BRANCH GUWAHATI ASSAM

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR B P BORAH

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent :

¶14

- B E F O R E -

¶15

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Date : 08-03-2021

¶18

(Sudhanshu Dhulia , CJ)

¶19

Heard Ms. G. Goswami, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank.

¶20

The petitioner had taken a loan from the respondent Bank, i.e. Union Bank of India, for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/-, which could not be

¶21

Page No.# 2/2

¶22

repaid and subsequently the account has been declared as NPA. Thereafter, the respondent Bank had initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

¶23

The petitioner has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and has challenged the securitisation proceeding initiated by the respondent Bank.

¶24

At this stage, now filing of the writ petition serves no purpose. The only ground for the petitioner is that the respondent Bank has not agreed for the One Time Settlement (OTS), as the loan taken was a housing loan and this stand of the respondent Bank, is contrary to the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India.

¶25

All these points, however, can always be raised by the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, where the matter is pending.

¶26

No useful purpose can be solved by keeping the present writ petition pending. The writ petition stands dismissed, with the observations that all the points the petitioner has raised before this Court can be raised by the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the dismissal of the petition will not prejudice the case of the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Arin Ghosh v. the Union Bank of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arin Ghosh v. the Union Bank of India and Anr.

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

Tilok Konwar and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

The Governing Body of the Lakhimpur Kendriya Mahavidyalaya and Anrl Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors. B

M/S Nit Traders Vs M/S Kumar Roadways and 3 Ors.

Alsuma Begum Vs Mustt. Renuja Khatun Patowary and 3 Ors.

M/S Ishwar Food Products Private Limited Vs Union of India and 3 Ors. (B)

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Oil India Limited