IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Harish Suhalka S/o Shri Chaman Lal Suhalaka and ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union Bank Of India and ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2033 of 2023
Decided On : 09-02-2023
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 13(2), (4) - Loan agreement - Inability to loan - Auction - Auction notice and auction proceeding and possession notice is illegal and required strict action and liable to be quashed and set aside – There is a default on part of petitioner in making repayment - Para 19.
Finding of the Court:
Once petitioner has taken loan from respondent, he was under a legal obligation to repay same in time, while duly adhering to terms and conditions mentioned in loan agreement, but petitioner also did not do so - Thus, in view of a clear default on part of petitioner himself, he is not entitled for relief prayed for in petition - Thus, looking to overall facts and circumstances of case and material available on record, inability of petitioner to repay entire outstanding amount of loan, Court is of firm opinion that at this stage, no case for making any interference by this Court is made out.
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. This civil writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
(ii) That the auction dated 21.12.2022 may kindly be cancelled for petitioner property and respondent may be directed not to proceed for sale finalization of the subject property and asset should be restored in favour of the petitioner and maintain status quo during the pendency of the matter till the final decision.
(iii) Possession notice dated 21.01.2023, may kindly be stayed and cancelled and during the pendency of the matter no coercive action should be taken against the property of the petitioner.
(iv) The Respondents may be directed to regularize the petitioner account and take out of NPA by accepting the overdue amount and continue the account or reschedule the loan account for entire appropriate unpaid amount and may proceed for final settlement of the petitioner loan account as Hon’ble Court deems just appropriate.
(v) That the Respondent may be directed to bear the legal expenses because of the unethical harassment of the petitioner.
(vi) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may kindly be passed.”
2. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, the petitioner No.1 (henceforth referred to as ‘the petitioner’), in connection with his business needs, availed loan facilities from the respondent-Bank; such loans, as per the petitioner, were duly repaid by him.
3. In the month of July 2009, the petitioner was sanctioned and advanced a term loan, to the tune of Rs.15,80,000/-, by the respondent-Bank, for the petitioner’s business requirements; the petitioner duly adhered to the terms and conditions, mentioned in the agreement pertaining to the said loan, and had made timely repayment of the loan installments. However, thereafter, due to certain adverse market conditions, the petitioner was not able to deposit some amount in the concerned bank account, whereupon the respondent-Bank informed the petitioner that his account is going to be classified as NPA; the petitioner immediately approached the Manager of the respondent-Bank, and deposited the amount of Rs.1,43,327/-and Rs.36,673/-on 17.07.2019; whereafter, the petitioner was informed by the respondent-Bank that since the overdue amount has been deposited, the account of the petitioner shall be regularized.
4. On 17.10.2019, when the petitioner visited the respondent-Bank to deposit an amount of Rs.70,000/-in the loan account, the then Bank Manager did not permit the petitioner to do so, while asking the petitioner to deposit the entire outstanding amount. Thereafter, in the month of January 2020, the petitioner arranged some more funds and visited the respondent-Bank with a request to permit him to deposit the overdue amount in the loan account, but the Bank Manager refused to permit the petitioner to do so and asked the petitioner to repay the entire outstanding amount of loan.
5. The petitioner further averred that thereafter, on account of onslaught of Covid-19 pandemic, complete lock down was declared by the government, and accordingly, all the business activities were closed down; owing to such onslaught, vide circulars dated 27.03.2020, 17.04.2020 and 22.05.2020 issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the asset classification norms were redefined and a direction was given to all the Banks for extending sympathetic treatment, like extension of moratorium facility etc., to the borrowers of the loan(s).
6. However, despite the above, the respondent-Bank issued a notice dated 08.11.2019 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 2002’) (as amended from time to time), purporting to compel the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.16,23,044.51, within a period of
In view of a clear default on part of petitioner, he is not entitled for relief prayed for.
The court upheld the bank's actions under the Act, confirming that due process was followed in the recovery of the loan, dismissing the petition for lack of diligent prosecution by the applicant.
The court emphasized the need for justifiable actions by the bank in the auction process and the importance of compliance with the SARFAESI Act provisions.
The right of redemption under the SARFAESI Act extinguishes upon publication of an auction notice, and guarantees against the actions of secured creditors must follow established procedures before in....
Court confirmed that the borrower has alternative remedies under the NPA Act despite alleging procedural irregularities by the Bank.
The court affirmed the validity of auction proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, emphasizing compliance with mandatory notice provisions is essential, and that prior acknowledgment of debts restricts o....
The importance of coming before the court with clean hands and disclosing all material facts in legal proceedings.
A loan classified as Non-Performing Asset must adhere to criteria set by the Reserve Bank of India; effective alternative remedies must be pursued before invoking writ jurisdiction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.