Disposed

Purnima Das v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC4 Oct 2021WP(C)/4749/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a widow whose deceased husband had a loan with the respondent bank. The court noted the bank's failure to decide on a loan adjustment representation filed in 2015. Consequently, the court directed the bank to comply with a previous order of 2018 mandating the disposal of the representation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent bank to comply with the order dated 12.09.2018 in WP(C) No. 6264/2015 and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 30.04.2015.

Purnima Das Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Gauhati HC (2021)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010133212021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4749/2021

¶5

PURNIMA DAS

¶6

W/O- LT. JITEN CHANDRA DAS, R/O- TARAPUR, SHIBBARI ROAD, P.O. SILCHAR, P.S. SILCHAR, DIST.- CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788001

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ADMINISTRATIVE DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-06

¶9

2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001

¶10

3:THE ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM PIN- 788001

¶11

4:THE UCO BANK REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER SILPUKHURI GHY-03 ASSAM 5:THE BRANCH MANAGER UCO BANK SILCHAR CACHAR

¶12

Page No.# 2/4

¶13

ASSAM PIN- 78800

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K DEKA

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK

¶18

04-10-2021

¶19

Heard Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. S. Hazarika, learned Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Also heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned Standing counsel, UCO Bank for the respondent Nos. 4 & 5.

¶20

It is stated by the petitioner that her deceased husband, namely, Jiten Chandra Das was a Registered Class I (A) contractor of Railway Department. During his life time her husband took a loan from the respondent UCO Bank, Silchar Branch and before repayment of said loan amount, he expired in the year, 2009 because of Cancer, leaving behind his widow (petitioner) and their three minor children.

¶21

The respondent UCO Bank, Silchar Branch under Ref No. UCOSIL/ Enforcement/06/2013-14 dated 19.08.2013 (Annexure-1 to this petition) issued a communication to the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar to take over the physical possession of the secured assets i.e., the plot of land of the petitioner’s husband at Shivalik Park, river bank side, Uttar Krishnapur Part-III, Silchar measuring land area of 3 Bighas 3 Kathas covered by 2^nd R.S. Dag Nos. 34 & 35 of Patta No. 07, under Mouza-Uttar Krishnapur Part-II, Pargana Barakpar in the district of Cachar, under Section 14 of Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act and rules, 2002.

¶22

Accordingly, the Additional District Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar under Memo No. CMJ.47/2011/Pt/146-A dated 25.08.2013 (Annexure-2 to this petition) issued a detail order with regard to the said land of the deceased husband of the petitioner clarifying that remaining secured assets of the borrower (Jiten Chandra Das) shall be continued to be enjoyed by his successor till an order of the competent Court/Tribunal is received. Subsequent to that the respondent UCO Bank

¶23

Page No.# 3/4

¶24

issued a Possession Notice pertaining to the said land measuring 3 Bighas, 10 Kathas situated at Shivalik Park under Mouza-Uttarkrishnapur Part-II, Paragana Barakpur in the district of Cachar, Assam.

¶25

The petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent UCO bank on 30.04.2015 with regard to the adjustment of loan by way of sale of said mortgaged land property situated at Shivalik Park, under Mouza-Uttarkrishnapur, part-II, Pargana-Barakpur in the district of Cachar (Annexure-5 to this petition). However, the respondent Bank on 16.07.2015 issued a notice to the petitioner to vacate and hand over properties, land and building situated at Sibbari road, Tarapur, Silchar-3 measuring 4 Kathas 16 Chataks covered by 2^nd R.S., Dag No. 414 of Patta No. 80 under Mouza-Tarapur, Part-VII, Paragona-Barakpar in the district of Cachar and 2 Kathas 8 Chataks which are in the name of her late husband as well as in her name along with the plot of land at Shibalik Park, noted above. Subsequent to that on 13.08.2015 the respondent Bank issued a Vacation Notice to the Tenants of the petitioner with regard to the land and building of the petitioner and her husband situated at Sibbari road, Tarapur, Silchar.

¶26

Being aggrieved with the said Vacation Notice dated 13.08.2015 of the respondent UCO Bank, petitioner approached this Court preferring a writ petition being WP(C) No. 6264/2015.

¶27

The Court while issuing notice to the respondent by the order dated 12.10.2015 passed in said WP(C) No. 6264/2015, in the interim, kept the notices dated 16.07.2015 and 13.08.2015 issued by the respondent Bank in abeyance.

¶28

The said WP(C) No. 6264/2015 of the petitioner was disposed of by the Court on 12.09.2018 directing the respondent Bank to take a decision on the representation submitted by the petitioner on 30.04.2015 and thereafter, to take follow up steps, which have been annexed to this petition as Annexure-5.

¶29

By the said order dated 12.09.2018, the respondent UCO Bank is further directed by the Court to complete the process within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the said order. By the said order dated 12.09.2018, the interim order passed earlier on 12.10.2015 in WP(C) No. 6264/2015, noted above, was made absolute by the Court.

¶30

During the deliberation of the matter, Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner submits before the Court that the respondent Bank neither took a decision nor disposed of the said representation of the petitioner dated 30.04.2015.

¶31

Mr. Sarma, learned Standing counsel, respondent Bank also admitted the fact that the said

¶32

Page No.# 4/4

¶33

representation of the petitioner dated 30.04.2015 is yet to dispose of.

¶34

Considering the entire aspects of the matter, the Court is of the view that the respondent Bank is directed to comply with the order dated 12.09.2018 passed earlier in WP(C) No. 6264/2015 and to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 30.04.2015, noted above, in terms and direction passed in the said order dated 12.09.2018.

¶35

With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Purnima Das v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purnima Das v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Vs Mun Das and 54 Ors.

National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Vs Zubbar Ali and 75 Ors.

M/S Raitani Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

M/S. Ganesh Beez Bhandar Vs a.K.Ghosh and 3 Ors.

Baby Dey Kanangoe Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Uma Shankar Mishra Vs the State of Assam and 18 Ors.