Disposed

Sukhdev Singh v. F.C. Co-Op. Punjab & or.S

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Apr 2011CWP/15531/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order threatening arrest for loan default, arguing the loan was secured by mortgaged land whose mortgage deed was later found fictitious. The court stayed arrest and directed the petitioner to discharge the loan by providing fresh security within three months.

What did the court decide?

Arrest stayed; petitioner directed to discharge loan by funds or fresh security within three months; cheque of Rs 20 lacs returned.

Sukhdev Singh Vs F.C. Co-Op. Punjab & or.S — Punjab & Haryana HC (2011) — LawSathi Research

¶1

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

¶2

C.W.P. No. 15531 of 2010 . [O&M]

¶3

Date of Decision: 4^th April, 2011 .

¶4

Sukhdev Singh

¶5

Petitioner through Mr. R.S.Athwal, Advocate

¶6

Versus

¶7

Financial Commissioner, Coop, Punjab & Ors.

¶8

Respondents through Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate, for respondents NO. 2 to 4. Mr. Rahul Chatwal, Advocate, for respondent NO.5.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶10

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL]

¶13

The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 11.06.2010, 22.06.2010 and 13.07.2010 [Annexures P-3, P-2 and P- 1] passed by the Assistant Collector First Grade-cum-Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Balachaur, Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab and the Financial Commissioner, Cooperative Punjab, Chandigarh, respectively whereby he has been called upon to deposit the loan amount of `19,35,571/-, failing which coercive steps like his arrest and detention are to be taken.

¶14

The petitioner's grievance is that since the loan advanced to him was secured by mortgaging the land measuring 32 kanals owned by respondent No. 5, it is imperative upon respondent No. 4 Society to firstly auction the mortgaged property before ordering his detention or arrest.

¶15

Taking notice of the said contention, the following order was passed on 28.09.2010:-

¶16

“ Meanwhile, arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed. However, respondent No. 4 Society shall be at liberty to sell the mortgaged property by way of public auction. In case no bidder comes forward in public auction, respondent No. 4 Society shall be at liberty to sell the mortgaged property through negotiation, especially to Mr. Malkiat Singh son of Shri Karta Singh, resident of village Ansron, Tehsil Balachaur, District Nawanshahr, who is willing to purchase the property for more than Rs.20 lacs and has already given an undated cheque No. 199502, drawn at Punjab and Sind Bank, Kathgarh, in favour of respondent No. 4 Society, for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-, which is directed to be kept in custody of the Bench Secretary till the next date of hearing”.

¶17

The respondent Society has now filed its reply/affidavit pointing out that the alleged mortgage deed purportedly executed by respondent No. 5- the Guarantor has been held to be fictitious and bogus by the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Balachaur vide decision dated 12.02.2011. As regard to the prospective vendee mentioned in the above reproduced order dated 28.09.2010, the Society has brought on record an attested copy of the statement of his bank accounts to show that he does not have sufficient means to purchase the mortgaged property.

¶18

It appears that the petitioner does not own any immovable property in his own name or of his dependent family members. In these circumstances, when the 'mortgage deed' can not be given effect due to the decision of the SDJM, Balachaur, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction that the petitioner may either arrange the funds to discharge his loan liability

¶19

and/or execute a fresh mortgage/guarantee deed along with title deeds of some undisputed property of sufficient value, within a period of three months and till then his arrest shall remain stayed. In the event of failure of the petitioner to do the needful, the Society shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶20

Cheque of `20,00,000/- kept in the custody of the Bench

¶21

Secretary is returned to learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

Disposed of. Dasti .

¶23

April 04, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE

Sukhdev Singh v. F.C. Co-Op. Punjab & or.S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhdev Singh v. F.C. Co-Op. Punjab & or.S

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

Kuldip Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Bhai Harjit Singh Vs S.G.P.C. and Ors.

Major Singh Vs Pspc Ltd. and Anr.

Navjot Kaur Vs Bbk Dav College for Women and Others

Gunwant Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Bhupinder Kumar Vs Pswc