Disposed

Muralidhar Sahoo v. a.O., United Bank of India

Orissa HC1 Sept 2017WP(C)/8755/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an e-auction notice by a bank regarding mortgaged property. The court observed the petitioner's willingness to clear dues and proposed a higher down payment. Consequently, the court directed the bank to consider a One-Time Settlement or rephasing application sympathetically if the petitioner deposited a specific amount, while staying coercive action. The appeal agains

What did the court decide?

The Court directed the respondent Bank to consider the petitioner's application for One-Time Settlement or rephasing sympathetically if an additional sum of Rs. 2 lakhs was deposited, while staying co

This writ petition has been filed challenging the e-auction sale notic e dtd.18.4.2015 (Annexure-4) issued by the opp.party-Bank for sale of the mortgaged property. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had ava iled a term loan of Rs. 5.00 lakhs from the opp.party-Bank in the year 2009. It is submitted t hat though the petitioner had repaid some amount, due to acute financial stringency, he could not repay the balance loan dues for which the opp.party-Bank has initiated action under the SA RFAESI Act. It is also submitted that pursuant to the order of this Court dated 11.5.2015, the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the opp.party-Bank. It is further su bmitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to make payment of a substantial amount towar ds down payment against his outstanding loan account and shall apply for OTS and/or rephasemen t which may be considered sympathetically by the opp.party-Bank as has been done in other simi lar cases.

Learned counsel for the opp.party-Bank does not dispute the factual po sition regarding deposit of Rs.1.00 lakh in terms of the order dated 11.5.2015. He also submit s that the present outstanding loan dues against the petitioner is about Rs.6.38 lakhs, after adjustment of payment already made. It is fairly submitted that if the petitioner by depositin g a substantial amount again makes an application for OTS and/or rephasement, the Bank shall c onsider the same sympathetically as per the guidelines of the Bank and as has been done in oth er similar cases.

Considering the submissions made, it is directed that in the event the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs) with the opp.party-Bank wit hin four weeks hence along with an application for OTS and/or rephasement of the loan account, the same shall be considered by the Bank sympathetically in terms of its existing guidelines and as has been done in similar other cases and final decision shall be taken thereon within a period of four weeks thereafter.

It is needless to say that if the petitioner does not comply with the direction as specified above or defaults in making payment of the subsequent instalments as wo uld be fixed by the Bank, the Bank shall be at liberty to take recourse to such steps as provi ded in law.

Muralidhar Sahoo v. a.O., United Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muralidhar Sahoo v. a.O., United Bank of India

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

Ajit Ku.Mohanty Vs a.O.Icici Bank Ltd.

Dibakar Nayak Vs SBI

Sumitra Mallick Vs Cmcsc Cum Ao,Sbi

Puspalata Rout Vs Ao,the Urban Cooper

Hrudaya Nanda Dibedy Vs Rina Rani Das

Ajita Ku.Sahoo Vs Subani Bisoi