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

2024 Supreme(P&H) 738

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LISA GILL, AMARJOT BHATTI, JJ.
Shri. Gagandeep Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Reserve Bank of India & Anr. – Respondents
CWP NO. 17173 of 2019 (O&M)
Decided On : 05-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. H.S. Jagdev, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate and Mr. Sidhant Suri, Advocate for Respondent no.1.
Mr. C.S. Pasricha, Advocate for Respondent no.2 (though video conferencing).

The classification of loan accounts as non-performing assets must be borrower-wise, not facility-wise, and a guarantor cannot evade liability due to another borrower's defaults.

Headnote:(A) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 13(2) - Master Circular on Prudential Norms - Petitioner challenged notices issued under SARFAESI Act and Clause 4.2.7(i) of the Master Circular, claiming it was unconstitutional and illegal. Court found that asset classification must be borrower-wise, not facility-wise, and upheld the legality of the Master Circular. (Paras 1, 8, 10)

(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Efficacy of alternate remedy - Court noted that petitioner had an efficacious alternate remedy under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, thus dismissing the writ petition. (Paras 5, 10)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner availed a housing loan of Rs. 90 lakhs, which was declared NPA due to financial indiscipline. Notices were issued for recovery, and the petitioner sought to upgrade the loan account after depositing overdue amounts. (Paras 2, 3)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the classification of the loan account as NPA, stating that the petitioner could not escape liability due to the NPA status of his brother's loan account. (Paras 8, 10)

Issues: The main issues were the legality of Clause 4.2.7(i) of the Master Circular and whether the petitioner could challenge the NPA classification based on his brother's loan account. (Paras 4, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the classification of loans must be borrower-wise, and the petitioner, being a guarantor, could not avoid the consequences of the NPA status of his brother's account. (Paras 8, 10)

Result: Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Lisa Gill, J.

Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside notice dated 01.04.2017 (Annexure P-l), notice dated 05.07.2018 (Annexure P-6) and notices dated 04.01.2019, 28.02.2019 and 01.03.2019 (Annexures P-8 to P-10) issued under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act) and further setting aside communication dated 13.06.2019 (Annexure P-16), issued by respondent no.2 vide which respondent-Bank has refused to upgrade home loan account of petitioner. There is a further prayer for setting aside Clause 4.2.7(i) of the Master Circular - "Prudential Norms on Income Recognition, Asset Classification and Provisioning pertaining to Advances" alleged to be illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and in the alternate to declare that this provision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Petitioner seeks a direction to respondent no.2, Punjab National Bank, to upgrade home loan account of petitioner to standard in terms of Clause 4.2.5 of the above said Master Circular.

2. Brief facts as pleaded in this writ petition are that petitioner is a co-owner of residential property as detailed in para 2 of writ petition alongwith his real brother namely Navdeep Singh. Housing loan of Rs. 90 lakhs was availed of by petitioner on 02.12.2011 in order to purchase the said property of which petitioner is a co-owner. It is stated that on account of certain professional difficulties there was financial indiscipline on the part of petitioner which led to account being declared Non-Performing Asset (for short NPA) on 31.03.2017. Notice dated 01.04.2017 (Annexure P-l) under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was issued claiming outstanding amount to be Rs. 85, 81, 320/- as on 30.03.2017 with interest being charged upto 28.02.2017. It is stated that amount included the dues towards a car loan also which was availed of by petitioner. It is stated that overdue amount of Rs. 10.25 lakhs was deposited by petitioner after receipt of notice, therefore, account should have been regularized and it could not be termed NPA. However, notice dated 10.08.2017, dispatched on 17.10.2017 was received by petitioner through speed post on 20.10.2017. As petitioner felt that there was no occasion for issuance of such possession notice, e-mail dated 24.10.2017 (Annexure P-2) was sent by petitioner to respondent no.2 in this respect. Respondent no.2 is alleged to have issued a certificate dated 01.11.2017 (Annexure P-4) stating that loan account had been provisionally upgraded to standard category subject to finalization of accounts on quarter ending December, 2017. However, there was again default on the part of petitioner which led to issuance of notice dated 12.03.2018 (Annexure P-5) to petitioner and his brother Navdeep Singh seeking deposit of Rs. 5, 24, 093.29/- alongwith interest @ 9.15% per annum. Legal notice dated 05.07.2018 (Annexure P-6) was thereafter issued by respondent no.2 to petitioner and ultimately notice dated 16.07.2018 (Annexure P-7) under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was issued indicating that account in question had become NPA on 30.06.2018 with outstanding amount being Rs. 72, 08, 286/-. Sale notices dated 04.01.2019, 28.02.2019 and 01.03.2019 (Annexure P-8 to P-10) were issued fixing reserve price of house in question to be Rs. 280.50/- lakhs.

3. It is further pleaded that petitioner on 29.04.2019 submitted a representation before Bank that overdue amount could earlier not be deposited but now petitioner was ready to clear overdue amount and that the Bank should not proceed with any coercive action. Sale notice dated 04.06.2019 (Annexure P-12) was, however, issued for auction of property on 02.07.2019. Petitioner yet again requested respondent-Bank on 11.06.2019 (Annexure P-13) to upgrade his account. Same was responded to by the Bank on 11.06.2019 (Annexur

                            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 Back to top