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

2023 Supreme(Jhk) 42

RAJESH SHANKAR
Mithilesh Kumar Saw – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Pratyush Lala, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Shankar, J.

The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent no. 2 to return Sale Deed no. 1052 dated 25th February, 2016 in original to the petitioner, which was mortgaged in favour of the respondent-bank for obtaining cash credit facility of Rs. 10.00 lacs.

2. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that while taking the aforesaid cash credit facility vide Loan Account no. 5366261000003, Binda Devi, mother of the petitioner stood as guarantor for repayment of the same by mortgaging registered Sale Deed no. 1052 dated 25th February, 2016 with respect to the land measuring an area of 7.25 decimals, being portion of plot no. 121, Khata no. 10, Mouja Hochar along with building situated over the same. On 9th October, 2017, the aforesaid loan account of the petitioner was declared as “Non-Performing Asset” (NPA) by the respondent-bank. The respondent no. 2, thereafter, issued a legal notice to the petitioner and his mother-Binda Devi on 27th November, 2017 raising demand of Rs. 6.89 lacs. Since the petitioner could not make the said payment, Certificate Case no. 12(CB)/2018-2019 was initiated against the petition

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