IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, SANJIV BERRY, JJ.
M/s. Snoozer Bedding Ltd. & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Canara Bank & Anr. – Respondents
CM NO. 4944 & 6417-CWP of 2023 IN/AND CWP NO. 571
Decided On : 21-04-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to securitization notices and order. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. petitioner seeks extension and argues for msme protections. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. disclosure of ots proposal is crucial for court. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. court emphasis on disclosure of material facts. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed; funds ordered to be credited. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, J.
Today applications i.e. CM-4944 & 6417-CWP-2023 for recalling of the order dated 29.03.2023 and for seeking extension of time for depositing the part payment have been listed. With the consent of counsels for the parties the main case itself is taken on board for hearing.
2. Challenge in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Re-construction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ' 2002 Act') dated 07.04.2021 (Annexure P-19) and the subsequent notice issued under Section 13 (4) of the 2002 Act dated 05.04.2022 (Annexure P-29) alongwith the sale notice dated 15.12.2022 (Annexure P-30). Challenge has also been raised to the order passed by the District Magistrate, SAS Nagar dated 06.12.2022 (Annexure P-31).
3. The property in dispute is House No.2657, Sector 60, Mohali measuring 500 square yard. A perusal of notice issued under Section 13 (2) of the 2002 Act (Annexure P-19) would go on to show that a sum of Rs. 9,98,43,126.76 was due on the ground that on 05.02.2020 the operation and conduct of the financial assistance had become irregular. Resultantly, the formal notice under Section 13 (4) of the 2002 Act was issued and symbolic possession of the said property was taken under Rule 8 & 9 on 05.04.2022. The District Magistrate passed the order dated 06.12.2022 (Annexure P-31) while keeping in mind the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in ' Allahabad Bank v. District Magistrate, Ludhiana and others' , 2021 (3) PLR 690 and while noticing that a detailed affidavit had been submitted by the authorized officer and that present petitioners had been given opportunity to settle the matter with the Bank, but the settlement could not be effected.
4. The sale notice thereafter came to be issued and published in newspaper on 15.12.2022 (Annexure P-30) wherein it was noticed that there were total liabilities of Rs. 11,04,75,431.03 as on 11.12.2022 and the property measuring 500 square yards was put to sale with the reserve price of Rs. 4,62,13,000/-. The e-auction was fixed for 16.01.2023 as per the said notice.
5. The following order was passed on 12.01.2023 while noting the contention of the counsel for the petitioners:-
"It has been averred that the petitioner is a MSME Unit. Inter alia contends that prior to declaring the account of the petitioner/firm as NPA, the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India dated 17.03.2016 on the subject of frame work for revival and re-habilitation of Micro, Small and Medium enterprises and in particular para 2.1 was not adhered to inasmuch as the matter was never placed before the duly constituted Committee.
Counsel further submits that against an outstanding amount of Rs.8.5 Crores approximately as of date, the petitioner/firm is willing to deposit a sum of Rs.25 lakhs on or before 16.01.2023, a further sum of Rs.25 lakhs by 31.01.2023 and another amount of Rs.50 lakhs by 28.02.2023.
Notice of motion, returnable for 25.04.2023.
In the meanwhile, physical dispossession of the residential property bearing No.2657, Sector 69, SAS Nagar, Mohali shall remain stayed. Further, the e-auction proceedings pursuant to the e-auction sale notice at Annexure P-30 slated for 16.01.2023 may proceed but the same be not finalized without the leave of this Court.
It is, however, made clear that in case, the petitioner/firm defaults as regards the deposit of different amounts as have been undertaken by the counsel and recorded in the order
Allahabad Bank v. District Magistrate, Ludhiana
AI
The duty of a litigant to disclose all material facts and the bank's right to protect its recovery were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Subsection 3 of Section 13 makes it clear that a notice under Subsection 2 shall give details of the amount payable by the borrower. If Ms.Lodha’s submission were to be accepted, then the word “shall....
Point of Law : IT IS THE SOLEMN DUTY OF THE COURT TO APPLY THE CORRECT LAW WITHOUT WAITING FOR AN OBJECTION TO BE RAISED BY A PARTY, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE LAW STANDS WELL SETTLED.
Point of Law - It is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material for adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the obligation of a litigant to disclose all the facts of a case and le....
No borrower has a vested right to compel a bank to accept a One Time Settlement, as banks retain discretion in recovery matters.
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.