This order dismisses a writ petition challenging a bank's claim for outstanding housing dues. The petitioner failed to deposit the agreed amount, adopted delaying tactics, and the court found no merit in the claim.
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.
1
C.W.P.No.20513 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : 14.11.2011
C.W.P.No.20513 of 2011
Manjit Singh
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another
…Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present : Mr. Bikramjit Singh Bajwa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sumit Batra, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)
Earlier the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing CWP No.19257 of 2011 before this Court. In the said petition, it was pointed out by the Bank that Rs.27 lac is the amount due and payable against the housing loan and that the Bank has accepted 25% of the bid price in response to the public notice dated 22.4.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner had stated that the petitioner is ready and willing to settle the entire housing loan within two weeks and that the Bank should not proceed with the confirmation of the auction. In view of the said undertaking, this Court directed the Bank to communicate the totally outstanding due and payable by the petitioner within two days and the petitioner was granted two weeks time to deposit the entire outstanding amount.
Subsequently, the petitioner filed the present writ petition pointing out that a sum of Rs.8,87,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner
2
C.W.P.No.20513 of 2011
in the residential loan account, but the same has been adjusted by the Bank in the hospital loan account. It was stated that the undertaking of the petitioner was to pay the amount after adjusting the amount of Rs.8,87,000/towards the loan account of the residential house. In pursuance of such statement, the respondents were called upon to explain. Mr. Batra appeared on behalf of the Bank alongwith the Bank Manager and made a statement on 08.11.2011 that Rs.8,87,000/- shall be adjusted towards the residential loan account. Thereafter, the petitioner had undertaken to settle the residential loan account till today i.e. 14.11.2011.
Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the statement of accounts communicated to the petitioner discloses the outstanding amount as Rs.26,69,673/-, whereas the forwarding letter communicates a sum of Rs.33,54,198/-. Therefore, the claim of the Bank over and above Rs.26,69,673/- is untenable.
On the other hand, Mr. Batra has pointed out that an amount of Rs.26,69,673/- is the amount when the account of the petitioner was declared as non-performing asset. Whereas the accrued interest has been added separately and communicated to the petitioner vide communication Annexure P-7.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that the petitioner has not disputed the amount claimed by the Bank either in the previous writ petition or in the present writ petition. It appears that the petitioner is adopting delaying tactics so as to avoid the payment of loan amount even though so undertaken by the petitioner number of times. It is admitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner has not deposited any
3
C.W.P.No.20513 of 2011
amount as communicated to the petitioner in terms of the earlier order passed.
In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is dismissed. .
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE
14.11.2011 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) Vimal JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether valid reasons exist for granting relief to the petitioner who failed to deposit the outstanding loan amount despite undertaking to do so.
Whether the petitioner's admission that no amount has been deposited justifies dismissal of the writ petition.
Manjit Singh
State of Punjab
Hemant Gupta
G.S. Sandhawalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
