Dismissed

M/S Manav Nirman Samiti (Regd Society) & Anr. v. State Bank of India and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Mar 2014CWP/5294/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the orders of the DRT and DRAT, the court refused to interfere. The bank conceded no Section 13(4) notice was issued, rendering debtor proceedings premature. The court noted petitioners' willingness to pay and that no coercion existed.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petitioners are dismissed with observations that they should approach the bank to settle dues.

M/S Manav Nirman Samiti (Regd Society) & Anr… — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.5294 of 2014 (O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 21.03.2014

¶3

M/ s Manav Nirm al Samiti and another

¶4

…..Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

State Bank of India and another

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL, CHI EF JUSTI CE HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE ARUN PALLI

¶9

Present: Mr. Amit Rawal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Manvinder Dalal, Advocate for the petitioners

¶10

SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL, CHI EF JUSTI CE : (Oral)

¶11

We have heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners at

¶12

length.

¶13

We see no reason to interfere with the im pugned order of the DRT or DRAT, as the own stand of the respondent-bank is that no notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act has been issued and, thus, obviously, the proceedings initiated by petitioners/ debtors are premature.

¶14

We may note that there were initial proceedings taken under the SARFAESI Act and opportunity given to petitioners to clear the dues under the OTS Scheme and even then the petitioners defaulted, resulting in the second round of steps being taken by the bank.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, states that the petitioners though defaulted in payment of OTS amount, continued to pay the amount beyond the period and are willing to pay interest. He submits that petitioners are willing to clear the liability for

¶16

Chand Parkash 2014.03.21 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CW P- 5294 - 2014

¶18

- 2 -

¶19

which the original period was till 2015, but the petitioners defaulted in payment of instalments.

¶20

In our view, no one is holding a gun to the head of the petitioners not to pay the amount. If the petitioners approach the bank, naturally, the bank would examine the possibility of settling the dues of the petitioners whose creditworthiness has undoubtedly been dented on account of default in payment under the earlier OTS scheme. If the petitioners have continued to pay the amount and the bank feels that it is possible to recover its dues with interest by giving moratorium period keeping in mind that petitioner No.1 is an educational institution, we are sure that bank would examine the sam e.

¶21

Dismissed with the aforesaid observations.

¶22

( SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL ) CHI EF JUSTI CE

¶23

21.03.2014 ( ARUN PALLI ) parkash* JUDGE

¶24

Chand Parkash 2014.03.21 15:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

M/S Manav Nirman Samiti (Regd Society) & Anr. v. State Bank of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Manav Nirman Samiti (Regd Society) & Anr. v. State Bank of India and Anr.

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

K.S.Saini Vs Union of India & Ors.

S K Aggarwal Vs UOI and Ors.

Chd.Admn.U.T.Chd. Vs Cat Chd

Sat Pal Vs Raj Kumari and Others

Gurjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sarup Singh Vs Central Administrative Trib. & Ors.