Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Jaswant Singh, M. S. Sahoo, JJ.
Ranjan Kumar Das – Appellant
Versus
Branch Manager, Uco Bank, Balitutha, District Jagatsinghpur – Respondent
Writ Petition (C) No. 34875 of 2022
Decided On : 19-01-2023
SARFAESI Act - Defaulting Borrower - Demand Notice and Possession Notice
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner defaulted on a Cash Credit Loan and a Term Loan from UCO Bank, leading to the classification of the accounts as NPA and issuance of Demand and Possession Notices.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the writ petition after the bank provided the statement detailing the amount due, addressing the petitioner's grievance.
Issues: Challenge to Demand and Possession Notices based on alleged miscalculation of amounts due.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the bank's provision of the statement detailing the amount due, which addressed the petitioner's grievance.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner as a defaulting borrower in a Cash Credit Loan availed for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from UCO Bank, Balitutha Branch, District-Jagatsinghpur and also a Term Loan availed for a sum of Rs.2,02,000/- on 22.05.2007 and 26.09.2011 respectively. Both the loan accounts were classified as NPA on 31.03.2014 due to non-servicing of the account/non-deposit of the installments. A Demand Notice was issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on 13.07.2022 and thereafter symbolic possession of the mortgaged property offered as a collateral security was assumed on 18.11.2022.
The petitioner claims to have deposited a sum of Rs.80,000/- in the Cash Credit Loan account and Rs.4,20,000/- in the Term Loan account on 21.11.2022.
2. The challenge in the present writ petition is laid to the aforesaid Demand Notice and the Possession Notice simply on the ground that the amounts have not been properly calculated.
3. The prayer at the time of hearing on 09.01.2023 was however limited for direction to the UCO Bank to provide the Bank statement along with details of amount due and the outstanding liabilities in both the accounts.
4. At the time of hearing today, learned counsel for the Bank has filed an affidavit along with a copy of the statement thereby redressing the grievance of the petitioner so as to know as to how much he has to pay upon proper calculation.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of.
The court's decision was influenced by the bank's provision of the statement detailing the amount due, which addressed the petitioner's grievance.
Compliance with court orders and instructions is crucial in legal proceedings, and failure to do so can result in dismissal of petitions.
The SARFAESI Act, 2002 does not allow a simplicitor challenge to the demand notice for outstanding liabilities.
The court's decision was based on the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition and pursue available remedies before the finance company.
Challenge to demand notice under SARFAESI Act not maintainable at initial stage
Dismissal of writ petition as infructuous due to closure of loan account
The court's decision was influenced by the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, specifically Section 13(4), which allowed for the upgrade of the loan account to a standard account upon the deposit o....
The court allowed an installment facility for repayment of overdue loan amounts, balancing lender's rights under SARFAESI Act with borrower's ability to repay.
The petitioner's failure to comply with installment payment directions led to dismissal of the writ petition, as remedies lie within pending proceedings.
The bank's right to take actual possession of the secured asset under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 upon default by the borrower.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
