SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Gau) 1094

A.K.GOSWAMI, AJIT BORTHAKUR
Bipul Ch Rabha – Appellant
Versus
Bank of Baroda – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
U.C. Rabha, Adv., M. Dutta, Adv.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. U.C. Rabha, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The respondent Bank accepted a request for grant of loan to the petitioners for the purpose of constructing a residential house and, accordingly, a sanction letter was issued on 09.05.2014 for Rs. 22,00,000/- (Twenty Two Lakhs). The petitioners executed a Memodandum of Entry dated 10.05.2014 by depositing documents pertaining to mortgage of immovable property in favour of the respondent bank.

3. In this writ petition, the petitioners call into question a possession notice dated 09.05.2017.

4. A perusal of the possession notice dated 09.05.2017 goes to show that a demand notice dated 18.01.2017 was issued asking the present petitioners to repay an amount of Rs. 22,03,605.95, as on 31.10.2016, within 60 days from the date of receipt of the said notice together with further interest at the contractual rate plus costs, charges and expenses till date of payment.

5. As the petitioners/the borrowers had failed to repay the amount, the Bank had taken possession of the mortgaged property in exercise of powers conferred under Section 13(4) of Securi






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top