Allowed

Pritam Lal v. United Bank of India

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Feb 2011CR/4357/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision allowed. Court set aside impugned order, cancelled auction, restored title, excluded recovery of bank deposit, and directed title release based on settlement.

What did the court decide?

Set aside objections dismissal; set aside auction and proceedings excluding recovery of Rs. 1,87,000 deposit; dismiss execution as satisfied; revoke sale certificate and order refund of duty; direct b

Pritam Lal Vs United Bank of India — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

C.R.No.4357 of 2000

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.R.No.4357 of 2000 Date of decision:16.02.2011

Pritam Lal

..... Petitioner

Versus

United Bank of India and others ..... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA

¶10

Present: Mr.R.S.Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Ms.Sushma Verma, Advocate for United Bank of India-respondent no.1.

¶12

Mr.D.V.Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms.Shivani Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no.2.

¶13

¶14

RAJIVE BHALLA, J.(ORAL)

¶15

The petitioner challenges the dismissal of his objections by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ludhiana vide order dated 03.10.2000.

¶16

The petitioner was a guarantor for a loan raised by respondent no.3. A decree dated 07.03.1990 was passed against the petitioner and respondent no.3. The petitioner's house was auctioned in favour of respondent no.2, the auction purchaser. The petitioner filed objections to set aside the auction but the objections were dismissed.

¶17

During pendency of these proceedings, Sh.Pritam Lal S/o Lachman Dass, accompanied by his counsel Sh.R.S.Ghuman, made a statement on 31.01.2011 agreeing to pay Rs.4,50,000/-. In acceptance of this statement, Sh.Ram Parkash Bansal S/o Sh.Girdhari Lal, General

¶18

C.R.No.4357 of 2000

¶19

-2-

¶20

Power of Attorney Holder of Smt.Parkash Wati wd/o Sh.Girdhari Lal, the auction purchaser, filed an affidavit dated 31.01.2011 accepting the offer made by Sh.Pritam Lal to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs.Four lacs and fifty thousand only). The order dated 31.01.2011 reads as

¶21

follows: -

¶22

“ Sh.Pritam Lal S/o Sh.Lachman Dass, R/o Street No.15, Near Himachal Bhawan, Parbhat Nagar, Dholewal, Ludhiana, is present in court and has been duly identified by his counsel Sh.R.S.Ghuman, Advocate. Sh.Pritam Lal has filed an affidavit dated 31.01.2011 undertaking to pay an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs.Four lacs and fifty thousands only) within fifteen days to the auction purchaser-respondent no.2.

¶23

Affidavit dated 31.01.2011 filed by Sh.Ram Parkash Bansal S/o Sh.Girdhari Lal, R/o H.No.610/13, Sham Nagar, Ludhiana, General Power of Attorney Holder of Smt.Parkash Wati wd/o Sh.Girdhari Lal, in court today is taken on record. Sh.Ram Parkash Bansal states that he is duly authorised to file this affidavit and settle the matter to the tune of Rs.4,50,000/-.

¶24

To await payment of amount, adjourned to 16.02.2011.”

¶25

Sh.Pritam Lal, who is present in court today has handed over to Sh.Ram Parkash Bansal S/o Sh.Girdhari Lal, a bankers cheque bearing no.229525, for Rs.4,50,000/- (Rs.Four lacs and fifty thousands only) drawn on State Bank of India.

¶26

On having received the aforementioned cheque, Sh.Ram Parkash Bansal states that he has no objection, if the objections filed by the petitioner are allowed and the auction is set aside.

¶27

In view of the settlement between the petitioner and respondent no.2, the revision is allowed and the order dated 03.10.2000

¶28

C.R.No.4357 of 2000

¶29

-3-

¶30

is set aside. The auction and all other proceedings emanating therefrom are set aside. The amount of Rs.1,87,000/- (Rs.One lac eighty seven thousand only) deposited by the auction purchaser and received by the Bank shall not be recovered. The execution petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed as satisfied. As a necessary consequence, the sale certificate dated 24.05.2000 issued in favour of respondent no.2 shall stand revoked/cancelled and on respondent no.2's making an appropriate application before the executing court and the stamp duty, if any, deposited by respondent no.2 for obtaining the sale certificate shall be ordered to be refunded within three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶31

The United Bank of India is directed to forthwith, preferably within three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order, release documents of title deposited by the petitioner with the bank while standing guarantor for the loan made to respondent no.3, M/s Lally Casting Guru Arjan Dev Nagar, Ludhiana.

¶32

16.02.2011 shamsher

¶33

[ RAJIVE BHALLA ] JUDGE

Pritam Lal v. United Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritam Lal v. United Bank of India

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

Ram Pal Singh & Anr. Vs Baljinder Singh

Rai Singh Jhinja Vs Om Parkash

Bhag Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

(O&M) Mit Singh and Ors. Vs Rajinder Singh and Ors.

Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Jasmer Singh Vs Mohan Lal and Ors.