Disposed
M/S.Oasis Agro Pvt.Ltd. v. Uco Bank
Orissa HCWP(C)/19151/2017
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
No.19151 of 2017 02. 12.9.2017 Heard learned…
What the court decided
AI extract
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.
W.P.(C) No.19151 of 2017
02. 12.9.2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
counsel for the opposite parties-Bank.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the e-auction/sa
le notice dated 21.8.2017 (Annexure-6), issued by the opposite parties-Bank, under Sections 13
(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for sale of the mortgaged property for recovery of the loan du
es and the letter of the Bank dated 29.5.2017 (Annexure-5), rejecting the application of the p
etitioners for settlement/restructure of the loan account.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that similar e-auc
tion/sale notice had been earlier issued by the Bank against which the petitioners had moved t
his Court in W.P.(C) No.3964 of 2017, wherein this Court vide order dated 13.04.2017 had direc
ted the petitioners to deposit Rs.8.00 lakh with the Bank within four weeks along with an appl
ication for one time settlement/rephasement of the loan account, which shall be considered by
the Bank in terms of its existing guidelines and as has been done in other similar cases.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to t
he order dated 13.04.2017, passed in W.P.(C) No.3964 of 2017, the petitioners deposited an amo
unt of Rs.8.00 lakh with the Bank and filed an application for rephasement/restructuring of th
e loan account, which has now been rejected by the Bank vide impugned order dated 29.5.2017, a
s per Annexure-5. It is submitted that the Bank has mechanically rejected the application of t
he petitioners for settlement/restructuring of the loan account on the plea that the petitione
rs had not responded to the earlier demand notice of the Bank issued under Section 13 (2) of t
he SARFAESI Act and therefore restructuring of their loan account is not possible. According
ly, the Bank has directed the petitioners to clear the entire overdue amount.
Learned counsel for the Bank submits that as the petitioners h
ad not given any proposal for settlement/ restructuring of the loan account, the Bank has dire
cted the petitioners to clear the overdue amount, for regularising the loan account.
Considering the submissions made and keeping in view our order
dated 13.04.2017, passed in W.P.(C) No.3964 of 2017, the petitioners are granted liberty to f
ile a fresh application giving better particulars for settlement/ restructuring/rephasement of
the loan account before the Bank within two weeks hence and on receipt of the same, the Bank
shall take a decision thereon within two weeks thereafter, keeping in view its existing norms
and guidelines with regard to such settlement, under intimation to the petitioners.
For a period of four weeks, no further action shall be taken i
n respect of the mortgaged property of the petitioners in question pursuant to the e-auction/s
ale notice under Annexure-6 to the writ petition.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Issue
urgent certified copy as per rules.
(S.C. Parija, J
.)
(D. Dash, J
.)
2
Petitioners
Bank
S.C. Parija
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court