Writ petition challenging release of mortgaged property without guarantor consent dismissed as facts are disputed and require evidence. Court granted liberty for alternate remedy.
Liberty granted to petitioners to avail their remedy as may be available to them in accordance with law.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 3818 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.9.2011
Smt. Tarsem Kumari & Others .....Petitioners
Versus State Bank of Patiala and others ….Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Shri Pavan Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Shri R.S. Bhatia, Advocate, for respondent No.1.
Ms. Ruchi Sekhri, Advocate, for Shri Pankaj Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondents No.2, 4 & 9.
Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral)
The petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of Certiorari for quashing the release of mortgaged property of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 without the consent of the petitioners, who were the Guarantors to the financial assistance availed by respondent No.2, a partnership firm.
The petitioners are the Guarantors of the loan availed by respondent No.2 and its partner. Such partnership firm has sought modification of the loan. In such process, the petitioners continued to be the Guarantors.
CWP No. 3818 of 2011 (O&M)
2
It is the assertion of the petitioner that the release of the property of borrowers without the consent of the petitioners, is not tenable. On the other hand, the Bank relies upon the revised consent granted on 3.7.2009 (Annexure R.1/6) on the basis of the request of the petitioners themselves.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the questions whether the petitioners are liable as Guarantors in respect of the loan availed by the firm and to what extent, are the disputed questions of fact. Such disputed questions of facts cannot be examined by this Court in the present writ petition as the same can be determined only on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties.
Consequently, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail their remedy as may be available to them in accordance with law.
14.9.2011 vinay/ds
3 issues framed by the court
Whether discharge of mortgaged property without guarantor consent is maintainable in this writ petition
Whether disputed questions of fact regarding guarantor liability can be examined by High Court in writ
Whether petitioners should be granted liberty for alternative remedy before disposal
Smt. Tarsem Kumari & Others
State Bank of Patiala
Hemant Gupta
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
