M/S Saniya Agency Vs Union Bank of India

i. A WRIT IN A NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 27.11.2024 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 BANK IN NO.OR/ARB/HBL/211/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶18

ii. A WRIT IN A NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT BANK TO CONSIDER THE REQUEST OF PETITIONER FOR OTS VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7683 WP No. 100428 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶25

With the consent of both the counsel, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶26

The present petition is filed by the borrower, who had borrowed certain loan for business purposes and due to loss in the business, could not continue the business and was unable to pay the installments to the respondent bank. In view of non-payment of the regular installments, the respondent issued demand/possession notice dated 06.01.2023 in respect of secured assets for recovery of Rs.27,91,695.07. The petitioner approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT’, for short) by filing S.A. No.45/2023 challenging the possession notice. The Tribunal by order dated 20.01.2023 passed an interim order. In compliance of the interim order, the petitioner deposited Rs.6,98,000/- being approximately 25% of the claim amount. During the pendency of the proceedings before the DRT, the respondent filed a memo stating that respondent-Bank would initiate fresh action and

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7683 WP No. 100428 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

sought for dismissal of appeal filed by the petitioner herein. On the basis of the memo filed by the respondent-Bank, the DRT dismissed the appeal as having become infructuous though no liberty was given to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner.

¶30

This being the state of affairs, after dismissal of the appeal, the respondent—Bank got issued fresh notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶31

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the DRT did not provide liberty to the respondent-Bank to initiate fresh action, therefore, issuance of fresh demand notice to the petitioner is bad in law, illegal

¶32

and the same is arbitrary and liable to be set aside and quashed. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meanwhile, the petitioner had requested the Bank to agree for the proposal of one time settlement which has not been appreciated or considered by

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7683 WP No. 100428 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

the bank. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned notice dated 27.11.2024 initiated by the respondent-Bank and consequently for writ of mandamus to consider the proposal for OTS scheme.

¶36

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank contends that, a notice was initially issued thereafter as certain amounts were paid by the petitioner, it was realized by the respondent-Bank that there is calculation error, hence, withdrew the notice and issued a fresh demand notice for payment of the amount due to the respondentBank. The respondent-Bank is wiling to consider the representation for one time settlement so also to deduct the amount already paid by the petitioner. Under the circumstances, he seeks disposal of the petition, as the bank would consider the representation so made by the petitioner and also take into consideration the amount already paid for closure of the loan account of the petitioner.

¶37

Under the circumstances, I pass the following

¶38

order:

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7683 WP No. 100428 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

i. This petition is disposed of.

¶42

ii. The impugned notice dated 27.11.2024 shall be reconsidered by deducting the amount already paid by the petitioner amounting to Rs.6,98,000/-.

¶43

iii. The respondent-Bank shall also consider the representation made by the petitioner earlier and he would be at liberty to file a fresh representation for reconsideration by calculating any amount already paid and yet to be paid which shall be considered by the respondent-Bank before passing any further orders in accordance with law.

¶44

iv. It is made clear that the respondent-Bank shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing any further orders.

¶45

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶46

kmv CT-MCK

M/S Saniya Agency v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Saniya Agency v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gas Sadik S/O Sayyed Anwar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Manohar Narayan Pawar Vs the Divisional Controller

Sreevani. B. Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivappa S/O Basappa Kendur Vs Superintendent of Police (S.P)

The Seerat Committee, Chikodi Vs Akhtar Hussein Mohammadhussein Sayyad

Sri Meghraj Mahadev Kugaji Vs New Sainik Co. Operative Society Ltd.