Dismissed

Ashu Bhatia v. State Bank of India

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Sept 2011CWP/16701/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court addressed a writ petition challenging a DR Tribunal order that vacated status-quo and allowed dispossession. The petitioner argued appeal delays would make statutory remedy nugatory. The Court disposed of the petition, granting liberty to appeal and directing no dispossession until appeal disposition or three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file appeal within one week. Petitioner not to be dispossessed till appeal decided by DRAT or for three weeks, whichever is earlier.

Ashu Bhatia Vs State Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 16701 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.9.2011 Ashu Bhatia .....Petitioner Versus State Bank of India ….Respondent

¶3

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶4

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶5

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶6

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶7

Present: Shri Ashu Bhatia, petitioner in person.

¶8

Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral)

¶9

The challenge is in the present writ petition is to the order dated 1.9.2011 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short `the Tribunal’), whereby the earlier order granting status-quo in respect of the property of the petitioner, was vacated. As a consequence of the said order, respondent-Bank, becomes entitled to take physical possession of the residential house of the petitioner.

¶10

The learned Tribunal has passed such order for the reason that the petitioner has not made the payment of Rs.8,00,000/-

¶11

CWP No. 16701 of 2011 (O&M)

¶12

¶13

and that the One Time Settlement proposal submitted by the borrower has been rejected by the Bank.

¶14

The petitioner, who is appearing in person, pointed out that the order dated 1.9.2011 is appealable, but the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, is not holding its sittings regularly, and holds its sitting once a month i.e. in the last week of each month. Therefore, the statutory remedy of appeal is likely to become nugatory, if the petitioner is not granted ad-interim protection for the period, the appeal is not entertained by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

¶15

Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal within one week from today. In the event of appeal being filed, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed till such time application for ad-interim stay is decided by the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal or for a period of three weeks, whichever is earlier. The said direction and liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶16

[ HEMANT GUPTA ] JUDGE

¶17

[ JASWANT SINGH ] JUDGE

¶18

14.9.2011 vinay/ds

Ashu Bhatia v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashu Bhatia v. State 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

Ashok Sharma and Anr. Vs Mohit Sharma and Ors.

Gurdev Singh & Anr. Vs Randhir Singh & Anr.

(O&M) Sehaj Ram Vs HUDA

Tarsem Kumari and Ors. Vs Sbop and Ors.

Krishan and Ors. Vs Bishan Chand

M/S Mehta Construction Company Vs State of Haryana and Ors.