High Court disposed of a writ petition concerning bank loan conditions and mutation of mortgage entries, relying on prior directions and deferring final effect to a pending Supreme Court appeal against precedent.
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.
Civil Writ Petition No. 2572 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 2572 of 2008 Date of decision: 18.11.2008
M/s Baba Paramjeet Singh and Co., New Subzi Mandi, Sirsa through its Proprietor Pritam Singh ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
.......Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.S.Khehar Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur
-.-
Present: Mr. Sandeep Punchhi, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Surinder Kumar Bishnoi,DAG, Haryana for respondents No. 1 to 2
Mr. Ashok Verma, Advocate for Mr. Naveen Mahajan, Advocate for respondent No. 3
-.-
J.S.Khehar, J. (Oral)
The petitioner claims to have applied for the grant of a loan from the Indian Overseas Bank, i.e. Respondent No. 4, herein, for a cash credit limit. Respondent No. 4, vide its communication dated 11.02.2008, sanctioned cash credit limit of Rs.15,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner, as working capital for the petitioner company. Vide sanction letter dated 11.02.2008, the Indian Overseas Bank (respondent no. 4) required the petitioner to deposit the original title deed of the property in the ownership of the petitioner, with the bank. It was also one of the requirements of the sanction letter dated 1.02.2008, that the factum of mortgage by deposit of
Civil Writ Petition No. 2572 of 2008 2
title deed will be got entered in the revenue record, by the petitioner.
In compliance with the terms and conditions of the sanction letter dated 11.02.2008, the petitioner addressed a communication to the Municipal Council, Sirsa (respondent No. 3), for making an entry of the mortgage, referred to herein above, in the Municipal Council record, expressly indicating, that the property, under reference, had been mortgaged by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No. 4.
The request made by the petitioner was not acceded to by respondent No. 3, which resulted in the filing of the instant writ petition.
We have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties.
The controversy raised by the petitioner stands settled in favour of the petitioner by a Division Bench of this Court in “Narvir Singh and another v. State of Haryana and others,” 2007 (2) ISJ (Banking) 266. The aforesaid determination of ours, is very fairly acceded to the learned counsel for the respondents. It is, however, pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, that a petition for Special Leave to Appeal has been preferred by respondent No. 1 against the decision rendered by this Court in Narvir Singh's case (supra), wherein notice has already been issued by the Apex Court. Learned counsel for the respondents accordingly state, that they have no objection to the disposal of the instant writ petition in terms of the directions issued by this Court in Narvir Singh's case (supra) with a rider that the same would be subject to the decision by the Apex Court in the petition for Special Leave to Appeal, which has been filed by respondent No. 1 against Narvir Singh's case (supra).
Having considered the totality of the facts and circumstances
Civil Writ Petition No. 2572 of 2008 3
noticed hereinabove, we are satisfied, that the stand adopted by the respondents is just and fair. The instant writ petition is accordingly disposed of, in terms of the order passed by this Court in Narvir Singh's case (supra), subject to a rider that the determination rendered by the Apex Court in the petition for Special Leave to Appeal filed by respondent No. 1 against the judgment in Narvir Singh's case (supra) would be binding on the parties to the instant writ petition.
Disposed of accordingly.
November 18, 2008 mohan
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the instant writ petition should be disposed of pending the decision by the Supreme Court on a Special Leave to Appeal against the Narvir Singh judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Narvir Singh and another v. State of Haryana and othersReferred¶21
2007 (2) ISJ (Banking) 266
M/s Baba Paramjeet Singh and Co. through its Proprietor Pritam Singh
State of Haryana
Municipal Council, Sirsa
Indian Overseas Bank
J.S. Khehar
Nirmaljit Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
