Petitioner approached HC for quashing of illegal auction and regularization of loan. Court dismissed writ petition citing that DRAT order addressed dispute; advise DRAT remedy. Noted potential subject mismatch; retain extracted subjects.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 2102 of 2017
Rajendra Prasad
... … Petitioner
Versus 1. Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, Ramgarh Cantt. Branch, Ramgarh 2. Chandan Kumar … … Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent-Bank : Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate -----
Order No. 06 Dated: 11.12.2018
The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent-Bank to cancel the illegal auction of the secured residential property of the petitioner which was mortgaged by him for the purpose of taking housing loan from the respondent-Bank. Further prayer has been made for regularizing the housing loan account of the petitioner which has been declared NPA by the respondent-Bank. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondent-Bank to allow the petitioner to make payment of the outstanding amount in installments.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner being the borrower of loan, filed an application on 24.08.2015 under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 being S.A. No. 66 of 2015 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi for setting aside the demand notice, possession notice, sale certificate dated 07.08.2015 and letter dated 08.08.2015 requiring him to vacate the sold property. The said S.A. was disposed of vide order dated 06.10.2016 with an observation that the respondent-Bank is entitled for Rs. 3,74,180/only and, therefore, it was directed to refund the sale proceeds minus Rs. 3,74,180/- to the petitioner. The respondent-Bank was thus directed to refund Rs. 7,05,820/- to the petitioner along with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- within 30 days from the date a copy of the order is made available, failing which it would be liable to make payment with interest @ 8% half yearly rest be chargeable on the principal amount. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the DRT, Ranchi, the respondent-Bank preferred Appeal Sr. No. 329 of 2016 before the
2
Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, which was allowed vide order dated 27.09.2018, setting-aside the order dated 06.10.2016 passed by the DRT, Ranchi with an observation that whatever amount remained in excess with the Bank after closure of the loan account, the same is to be returned to the petitioner, if not already refunded, with 8% simple interest per annum from the date of issuance of sale certificate till the date of payment.
3. On consideration of the orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi and the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, it appears that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent-Bank has appropriately been addressed. As such, I see no reason to entertain the present writ petition. The same is accordingly disposed of. If the petitioner feels aggrieved by the order of the DRAT, Allahabad, he may take appropriate recourse as provided under law.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Manish
Rajendra Prasad
Authorized Officer, Canara Bank, Ramgarh Cantt. Branch, Ramgarh
Chandan Kumar
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court