2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 864043
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
DAUD – Appellant
Versus
CSL FINANCE LIMITED – Respondent
WPMS 2742 / 2025
Office Notes,
reports, orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar’s
order with Signatures
WPMS/ 2742/ 2025
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
1. Mr. Manoj Mohan, learned counsel
for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Pallav Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Finance
Company.
3. In the year 2019, petitioner took a commercial loan from respondent- Finance Company. Since there was default in repayment of the loan, therefore, respondent has invoked power under SARFAESI Act for realisation of
outstanding dues.
4. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged a possession notice dated 23.06.2025 issued under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act. The amount outstanding against the petitioner, as on 23.06.2025, is indicated as ₹9,87,161/-
in the said possession notice.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready and willing to repay the loan, however, owing to family circumstances, there was some default in repayment of loan. He submits that if petitioner is given an opportunity to submit proposal for one time settlement, he intends to enter into a 6. Mr. Pallav Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent submits that if petitioner submit a proposal for one time
in the Finance Company, then his request shall be considered favourably.
7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of by permitting the petitioner to submit a proposal for one time settlement to the Competent Authority in the Finance Company. Petitioner will deposit upfront amount of ₹50,000/- with the Finance Company along with OTS proposal to show his bona fide. If petitioner submits such proposal, along with aforesaid amount, within ten days from today, the Competent Authority in the Finance Company, shall take decision thereupon within three weeks thereafter. For a period of four weeks or till decision is taken on petitioner’s proposal, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.
8. In case of any default by the petitioner, he shall not be entitled to protection of this order and Finance Company will be free to proceed against him, in accordance with law.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)
22.09.2025 Aswal N AS IT W I R A A L J SINGH DU2es8Da.A TiN a 5r g 35ti :4 e 8 Atc l:f a2N =Rl0I,u y N 1=pmK s, 7eo5 io bag s. A= 0tcn 9 N F H r e l=6BCD 2 IdG74o ,b5H 0dE y , 7 CeBc N =:n O 52 I74 TU68CN 43 R BI0T1A FeO - J R9FS ,A3 B I s' UN J7t f=TG S68IU9 H N98T G A3R C4H S ABfW K 6R0H F7S14KW L HN CAD 2LN, oD5E ua3, =8H 25I 6 GfF9H 58 C0C2OaU D3R A0T C8 O Fb4 F08d1306C95F1E25