The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by a subsequent encumbrancer challenging notices under the SARFAESI Act. Justice Kannan held that courts should not act as collection agents to grant whimsical reprieves to stall enforcement, noting the petitioner's failure to fully comply with deposit orders.
The writ petition is dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.11345 of 2009 Date of decision: 09.04.2010
Kulwinder Kaur ….Petitioner
versus
State Bank of India, SAARC Branch, Zonal Office Fountain Chowk Ludhiana through its Zonal Manager and another …Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present: Mr. D.R. Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.S.C.Pathela, Advocate, for the respondents.
K.Kannan, J (Oral)
Civil Writ Petition No.11345 of 2009 - 2 -
taken note of the fact that the petitioner could deposit Rs.1,20,000/- and had granted a further reprieve to the petitioner to deposit Rs.60,000/from the date when the Court passed an order. On a subsequent hearing, the Court has noticed that against Rs.60,000/- as directed , the petitioner deposited only Rs.20,000/- and that amount was directed to be received by the Bank and open the lock put in front of the door of the house of the petitioner. On a subsequent date on 24.09.2009, the Court has observed that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.5,000/- per month and will continue to deposit till the next hearing. The counsel for the petitioner states that he has been continuing to deposit at every hearing and against the total amount of around Rs.7 lakhs, the petitioner had paid about Rs.3 lakhs.
(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 09.04.2010 sanjeev
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can exercise discretionary jurisdiction to grant reprieves to stall enforcement actions under the SARFAESI Act.
Whether a subsequent encumbrancer has the standing to challenge notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act.
Whether continuing proceedings as a matter of pure discretion amounts to abuse of process of law.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Kulwinder Kaur
State Bank of India, SAARC Branch, Zonal Office Fountain Chowk Ludhiana
K. Kannan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
