Disposed

Sumesh Sarna v. Bm,Sbi,Brajarajnagar

Orissa HC5 Feb 2019WP(C)/23351/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a possession notice under SARFAESI Act, 2002 due to a dispute over loan settlement. The court observed that parties had negotiated an amount but a dispute existed. The petitioner was given ten days to approach the bank for settlement, after which the bank was directed to consider the application.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was given ten days to approach the Bank for settlement of the loan account, directed to be considered subsequently.

Sumesh Sarna Vs Bm,Sbi,Brajarajnagar — Banking and Recovery | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 23351 of 2017

¶2

09. 05.02.2019

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.R.Sikdar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-Bank.

¶4

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the possession notice dated 23.10.2017 issued by opposite party-Bank under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 directing the petitioner to repay the total dues of Rs.15,97,011/-.

¶5

¶6

It is contended by the petitioner that earlier the bank has settled the dues as a one time measure at Rs.5,19,601-. Copy of which was filed by the petitioner as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. On perusal of the same it reveals the Bank manager has issued the said letter to the petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount and settle the loan account as one time measure. It was also indicated in the said letter that application for One Time Settlement will be processed only on deposit of minimum 5% of the outstanding as on 31.3.2016 and 25% of the OTS amount will have to be deposited by the petitioner as upfront money within thirty days from the date of sanction of OTS. However due to financial difficulty petitioner could not file application as per the term and conditions of the said letter. Hence the possession notice was issued.

¶7

Mrs. Sikdar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-Bank submitted that as on date the outstanding amount against the petitioner loan account is Rs.14,09,956/- and petitioner can pay part of the said

¶8

¶9

amount and go for One Time Settlement.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has negotiated with the Bank authorities and the bank authorities are agreed to settle the loan account of Rs.1,50,000/-.

¶11

Considering the above and since there is a dispute regarding the amount for One Time Settlement, we dispose of the writ petition with an observation that in case the petitioner approaches the opposite party-Bank for settlement of the loan account within a period of ten days from today in such event the opposite party-Bank shall consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶12

…..……………… S.K.Sahoo, J

Sumesh Sarna v. Bm,Sbi,Brajarajnagar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumesh Sarna v. Bm,Sbi,Brajarajnagar

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

Rajeswar Rao Naidu Vs State

Deepak Gupta Vs Rdc,Sambalpur

Dipak Kumar Pal Vs State of Orissa

Baikuntha Dalabehera Vs State of Odisha

Banamali Nayak Vs Rm,Kalinga Gramya Bank,Balasore

Ranjit Kumar Samant Singh Vs State of Odisha