Dismissed

M/S Guru Gobind Industries v. State Bank of Patiala and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC12 Aug 2009CWP/10296/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The Court observed that the petitioner failed to deposit the undertaking amount promised earlier.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with the Registrar directed to send a copy of the order to the respondents.

M/S Guru Gobind Industries Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶2

CHANDIGARH

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.10296 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.08.2009

¶4

M/s Guru Gobind Industries

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Bank of Patiala and another

¶8

Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.S.S.Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate

¶11

Jasbir Singh, J.

¶12

C.M. No.13451 of 2009

¶13

Application allowed, written statement is taken on record. CWP No.10296 of 2009

¶14

This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to the notice issued by the respondent-Bank under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. On 15.7.2009, when notice of motion was issued, it was observed as under:-

¶15

“By filing this writ petition, petitioner has laid challenge to notice issued by the respondent Bank under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is interested in saving its property. To show its bonafide, the petitioner is ready to deposit an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with the respondent- Bank within a period of three weeks from today and remaining amount shall be paid within 6 to 9 months, as per the payment schedule fixed by the respondent- Bank.

¶16

¶17

Civil Writ Petition No.10296 of 2009

¶18

Notice of motion for August 12, 2009. The respondent – Bank is restrained from taking any further coercive action against the petitioner till the next date of hearing. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to deposit the money, as undertaken today in Court, this writ petition shall be dismissed.”

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount, as undertaken by the petitioner on 15.7.2009. This fact demonstrates that the petitioner has no intention to repay the loan amount. Otherwise also, this writ petition is not maintainable as remedy of appeal is available under the Act.

¶20

Dismissed.

¶21

Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to respondent

¶22

Nos.1 and 2.

¶23

12.08.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge

M/S Guru Gobind Industries v. State Bank of Patiala and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Guru Gobind Industries v. State Bank of Patiala and Anr.

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

Parveen Sethi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Zile Singh Vs State of Haryana etc.

Ram Sarup and Anr. Vs HUDA and Anr.

Ram Saran Bhatia Vs Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. etc.

Jaswinder Singh Vs Secretary Regional Transport Authority Patiala

Laxmi Devi Vs State of Haryana and Ors.