The court maintains limited interference under Article 226 but permits relief based on the borrower's commitment to settle dues under specified conditions.

Order

04/07/2025

1. This Court is not oblivious of the legal position that the scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matters relating to bank loans and proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2002’) is very limited, but since the petitioner is ready and willing to get his account settled and considering that he is prepared to deposit a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/- today itself out of the total outstanding amount of Rs.5,54,00,000/-, this Court is inclined to entertain the petition.

2. Mr. Kotwani, learned counsel for the petitioner in presence of the petitioner – Subhash Chand Jain submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to clear the entire dues and he is prepared to hand over a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/- by way of demand draft of Rs.1,05,00,000/- and remaining Rs.5,00,000/- shall be handed over in the form of Fixed Deposit to Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent – Bank. Mr Purohit, however, stated that the same be handed over to the respondent- bank itself.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner would be paying about a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- within a period of 15 days. He, however, stated that various important documents, including the documents relating to petitioner’s properties and gold jewellery, etc. are lying in his house which was seized abruptly by the bank. He prayed that the respondent – Bank be directed to lift the seizure for 2-3 hours so that he can take away his valuables and other documents relating to properties.

4. Learned counsel further prayed that since the petitioner would be depositing a sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- within a period of 15 days, which would clear 50% amount of the bank’s total dues (approximately Rs.5,54,00,000/-) therefore, the respondent - Bank be directed to deseize the petitioner’s residential house while assuring that the entire remaining dues of the respondent – Bank will be cleared within a period of three months or latest by

15.10.2025.

5. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent – Bank and Mr. Amit Sharma, General Manager of the Yes Bank appearing virtually though initially proposed to argue the matter on merit, but considering the fair proposal of the petitioner-borrower they acceded to such request of the petitioner, subject however, with a caveat that the petitioner be bound by his undertaking.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition stands disposed of with the following directions:-

(i) The petitioner shall hand over the amount of Rs.1,10,00,000/-as offered, to the respondent – Bank today itself; (ii) On such amount being deposited, the respondent – Bank shall open the petitioner’s house on 07.07.2025 (Monday) in presence of the petitioner at about 11:00 a.m. so that the petitioner can take away his important documents (relating to his properties) and other valuables such as gold jewellery, etc. The Bank shall again seize the property by 02:00 p.m. on 07.07.2025; (iii) The petitioner shall have to deposit another sum of Rs.1,50,00,000/- on or before 25.07.2025.

(iv) On the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- being deposited; the respondent - Bank shall provisionally lift the seizure of the residential house of the petitioner and consequentially, the proceedings of the respondent – Bank taken under the Act of 2002 shall be kept in abeyance till 15.10.2025.

(v) The petitioner shall have to deposit the entire remaining outstanding amount and interest upto 15.10.2025 which th