Dismissed

Virendra Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC9 Aug 2012CWJC/5902/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In writ petitions challenging liability to repay a loan secured by mortgaged property, the court directed the respondent Corporation to hold a re-auction of the property within four months to satisfy dues before proceeding against the petitioners for any remaining balance.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Corporation to hold a re-auction of the mortgaged property within four months and proceed against petitioners only for remaining dues thereafter.

Virendra Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Banking and Recovery | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5585 of 2006

¶2

====================================================== Manju Kumari, wife of Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Resident of Mohalla Sahdeo Mahto Marg, Boring Road, Police Station S.K. Puri, District Patna .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Commissioner, Department of Industry, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariate, Patna. 2. Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation through its Managing Director, Indira Bhawan 4^th Floor, Ram Charitra Singh Path, Patna-1. 3. The Certificate Officer, Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation, Indira Bhawan 4^th Floor, Ram Charitra Singh Path, Patna-1. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5902 of 2006

¶3

====================================================== Virendra Kumar, son of Sri Kedar Nath, Resident of Mohalla Sahdeo Mahto Marg, Boring Road, Police Station S.K. Puri, District Patna .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Commissioner, Department of Industry, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariate, Patna. 2. Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation through its Managing Director, Indira Bhawan 4^th Floor, Ram Charitra Singh Path, Patna-1. 3. The Certificate Officer, Bihar State Credit and Investment Corporation, Indira Bhawan 4^th Floor, Ram Charitra Singh Path, Patna-1. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.5585 of 2006) For the Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Narain Singh Mr. Kundan Kumar Sinha, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Nirmal Kumar, Advocate Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, AC to GP1 (In CWJC No.5902 of 2006) For the Petitioner : Mr. Aditya Narain Singh Mr. Kundan Kumar Sinha, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Sumeet Kr. Singh, AC to SC 5 Mr. Nirmal Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶4

12 09-08-2012 In view of the order dated 24.01.2003 passed in CWJC No.14233 of 2002 as contained in Annexure-7, the liability of

¶5

Patna High Court CWJC No.5585 of 2006 (12) dt.09-08-2012

¶6

2 / 3

¶7

petitioners to repay amount of the Corporation cannot be denied.

¶8

However, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the property has been taken over by the Corporation long back. Since the mortgaged property is a valuable property, Corporation should take all possible steps to auction it and satisfy its dues. He submits that, if after sale of the property any further amount of Corporation remains due, petitioners are ready to pay.

¶9

Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that earlier property was put on auction but no potential buyer came to purchase the property offering any amount higher than the minimum bid amount fixed. Hence notice was issued to the petitioners on 28.02.2006, vide Annexure-1, for payment of loan amount.

¶10

Obviously, the auction was held prior to 2006. Since then the Corporation has not made any attempt to re-auction the property. If a property is in possession of the Corporation, it is required to make all possible efforts to sell it and satisfy its dues and then only move against borrower of the guarantor for payment of the remaining dues. Since it has been long time that the property was put to auction, this Court directs the Corporation to hold re-auction of the property within four months from today and make all efforts to sell the property at the highest possible

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.5585 of 2006 (12) dt.09-08-2012

¶12

3 / 3

¶13

price. Thereafter it will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioners and others, liable for repayment of the dues of the Corporation, for payment of remaining part of the dues.

¶14

It goes without saying that if, after due advertisement and in spite of making all efforts, Corporation fails to sell the property, then also it will be at liberty to proceed against petitioners and others for realization of the loan.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners at this stage submits that if the petitioners are allowed to sell the property, they will sell the same and liquidate dues of the Corporation.

¶16

Petitioners may approach the Corporation with such a proposal and if the Corporation is satisfied, and does not find it possible for it to auction sale the property and realize its dues, it may consider desirability of resorting to alternative way-out in the matter in accordance with law.

¶17

Both the writ applications are disposed of accordingly.

¶18

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

¶19

B.T/-

Virendra Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virendra Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harendra Kumar Ojha Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Nandlal Goenka Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Matriya Pioneering Works Vs The Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors.

Ram Bilas Sahu Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Gopal Jee Prasad and Ors. Vs The Chairman, Indian Oil Corporation and Ors.

Manju Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.