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

2017 Supreme(P&H) 332

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, RAMENDRA JAIN
Anshul Kumar Tayal – Appellant
Versus
Authorised Officer-cum-Chief Manager, Punjab – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate

JUDGMENT :

RAMENDRA JAIN, J.

1. The petitioner had availed four different loans on different dates and under different category from the respondent-bank. On account of non-adherence to the financial discipline of the respondent-bank, all the loan accounts of the petitioner were declared as Non-performing Asset (for short “NPA”). Consequently, the respondent-bank issued notice dated 20.10.2016 (Annexure P-7) under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Asset and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the SARFAESI Act”) asking the petitioner to clear all the loan accounts within 60 days. Thereafter, another notice dated 06.01.2017 (Annexure P-8) under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act was issued and symbolic possession of the mortgaged properties of the petitioner was taken. The petitioner challenged the said action of the respondent-bank initiated under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-1, Chandigarh, (in short, “DRT”), by way of filing SA No.29 of 2017. However, the DRT, vide order dated 04.02.2017 (Annexure P-9) did not grant any interim relief to the petitioner. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner mo






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