Dismissed

M/S Gr Industries and Ors. v. Authorized Officer Allahabad Bank

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Sept 2016CWP/16269/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of a notice under the SARFAESI Act via a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution. During adjournment, counsel admitted inability to produce demanded funds and requested withdrawal. The Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, preserving remedies.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to petitioner to take recourse to remedies available under law.

M/S Gr Industries and Ors. Vs Authorized… — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

CWP-16269-2016

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-16269-2016

¶5

Date of decision: 29.09.2016

¶6

M/s GR Industries and others

¶7

..... Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

Authorized officer, Allahabad Bank

¶10

..... Respondent

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. Manish Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶13

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The petitioners have approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of impugned notice dated 09.06.2016 issued by the respondent-Bank under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶15

On August 11, 2016, learned counsel for the petitioners sought time to seek instructions and the following order was passed:-

¶16

“Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have FDRs with the respondent-Bank and the maturity value on the basis of pre-mature encashment is _36,20,000/-. It was pointed out that the surrender value of insurance policy lying with the bank is_ 5,28,147/- which can also be adjusted towards the

¶17

Rishu Kataria 2016.10.03 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶18

CWP-16269-2016 -2-

¶19

loan account. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that there is a prospective buyer for the sale of house and prays for time to produce the demand draft of ` 86,40,000/-.

¶20

Adjourned to 29.09.2016”

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he is unable

¶22

to bring the demand draft of ` 86,40,000/- as undertaken by him on 11.08.2016. He further submitted that he may be allowed to withdraw the instant petition, with liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to the alternative remedy, as may be available to them, in accordance with law. 4. Dismissed as withdrawn. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedies, as may be available to them, in accordance with law.

¶23

( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶24

September 29, 2016 ( RAMENDRA JAIN ) rishu JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶25

Rishu Kataria 2016.10.03 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

M/S Gr Industries and Ors. v. Authorized Officer Allahabad Bank

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Gr Industries and Ors. v. Authorized Officer Allahabad Bank

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

Daljit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S B.R.Solvex Pvt.Ltd. Vs Punjab and Sind Bank & Ors.

Union of India Vs Ashok Kumar Jain and Ors.

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Basudev @ Vasudev Vs Chd Administration & Ors.

M/S Delta Guards Pvt. Ltd. Vs B.D. Sharma Pgims Rohtak and Anr.