Birendra Prasad v. Chief Manager-Cum-Ao,Uco Bank,Rourkela
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.41325 of 2021 Birendra Prasad ....
Petitioner Mr. Biswajit Nayak, Advocate -versusChief Manager-cumAuthorised Officer, UCO Bank, Rourkela ....
Opp. Party Mr. B.N. Udgata, Advocate for the Bank
CORAM:
JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN Order No.
ORDER (Oral) 07.04.2022 04.
1. This matter is taken up through virtual/physical mode.
2. The petitioner is a defaulting borrower of a Housing loan for a sum of Rs.30 lakhs availed from UCO Bank, Rourkela Branch on 22nd January, 2013
3. On the previous date of hearing on 11th March, 2022 the following order was passed:- "1.
This matter is taken up through virtual/physical mode.
2. The petitioner is stated to have availed a Housing loan of Rs.30,00,000/- on 22.01.2013.
Due to non-payment of installments, the loan account was declared NPA on 31.12.2015. A Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (for short "the Act, 2002") was issued on 25.01.2016 recalling the outstanding liability of Rs.33,99,358/- as on 25.01.2016. The
// 2 // symbolic possession is stated to have been assumed on 29.03.2016 under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002.
It transpires that the Bank had filed an Original Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack bearing O.A.
No.30 of 2018 seeking to recover the outstanding amounts, which was decreed and admittedly execution proceedings before the Recovery Officer bearing R.A. No. 40 of 2019 is stated to be pending.
3. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that as of now the total outstanding is Rs.59,38,300.00.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his client is prepared to deposit a substantial amount upfront and the remaining balance within next three months in order to save his residential property.
5. Learned counsel for the Bank is not averse to such a recourse in spite of the recovery proceedings pending.
6. Issue notice for 07.04.2022 for the limited purpose of clearing the arrears.
Mr.
B.N.
Udgata, learned counsel appears and waives off notice on behalf of the Opposite Party. Let a copy of the writ petition be served on him.
7. Let the petitioner deposit a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs) only on or before 22.03.2022 along with an undertaking to deposit the remaining balance within next three months."
4. At the time of hearing today, it is conceded that a sum of Rs.30 lakhs in compliance of the aforesaid order dated 11th March, 2022 stands deposited.
// 3 //
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the amount of outstanding liability are actually less than what has been projected before this Court. He further states that execution proceedings before the Recovery Officer for execution of a decree passed by the DRT, Cuttack are pending and the petitioner wishes to pursue his remedy in the said execution with appropriation of the aforesaid Rs.30 lakhs deposited towards fulfillment of decreetal amount. He further prays for permission to withdraw the writ petition to which the learned counsel for the Bank has no objection.
6. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn with permission to the petitioner to pursue his remedy in the execution proceeding. (Jaswant Singh) Judge (M. S. Raman) Judge Basudev April 7th, 2022 Cuttack