Disposed

Satnarain Sharma v. Union Bank of India

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Jul 2011CWP/10400/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Single Judge dismissed a Writ Petition challenging a DRT order disposing an appeal under the SARFAESI Act. The Court held that maintainability and condonation of delay (143 days) pre-appellatively to the DRAT were matters for the DRAT to decide while permitting a stay on possession of the residential property.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's writ petition disposed of with liberty to approach Appellate Authority and interim protection of residential possession for one week.

Satnarain Sharma Vs Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

C.W.P. No.10400 of 2011 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No.10400 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision.20.07.2011

¶5

Sat Narain Sharma s/o Sh. Raghu Nath Sharma r/o House No.54-B, Ashok Nagar, Panipat, District Panipat

¶6

.....Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union Bank of India, G.T. Road Panipat, District Panipat through its Branch Manager

¶9

.....Respondent

¶10

Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Sanjeev Ghai, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶13

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No

¶16

-.-

¶17

K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

¶18

The writ petition is against the order passed by the DRT disposing of the appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act with the delay of about 143 days in preferring the appeal. The writ petition is resisted on the ground that against the order passed by DRT, there is provision for appeal under Section 18 of SARFAESI Act and the writ petition itself is not maintainable.

¶19

It is also contended on behalf of the respondent that the delay itself cannot be condoned. The issue of whether a delay could be condoned or not and whether the time taken by the petitioner in prosecuting the claim before the Consumer Forum as well as Civil Court would be required to be excluded, will be considered in the light of

¶20

-2-

¶21

C.W.P. No.10400 of 2011 (O&M)

¶22

Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Whether the Court has the power to condone such a delay is not a matter, which could be decided by this Court and it will be considered appropriately in an appeal that the petitioner could file against the order passed under Section 17 of Appellate Authority DRAT.

¶23

Reserving to the petitioner such liberty to challenge the order and to seek for exclusion for time for condonation, if the law so permits, I dispose of the writ petition.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner also states that during the pendency of these proceedings, the Bank is taking action for delivery of possession of property. It is a residential house and he seeks for protection for a week to apply to the Appellate Authority and seek the appropriate interim directions. The petitioner claims that he is in possession of the property. Such possession, if it has not been already disturbed, shall be protected for one week and will stand automatically merged with the order that the Appellate Authority may feel inclined to pass when the appeal is filed.

¶25

The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions.

¶26

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶27

July 20, 2011 Pankaj*

Satnarain Sharma v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satnarain Sharma v. Union Bank of India

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

Man Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Manmohan Singh Vs Central Bank of India

Harvinder Kaur Vs Jugraj Singh

Bhajan Lal etc. Vs the Financial Comm. Revenue Punjab & Ors.

Yashpal Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

M/S Phonographic Performance Ltd. Vs State of Punjab etc.