Satish Kumar And Another v. State Bank Of India And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 17139 of 2018 (O&M) Decided on : 18.03.2019 Satish Kumar and another . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Bank of India and another . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL PRESENT: Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (in CWP No.17139 of 2018). Mr. Umesh Sharma, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner(s) (in CWP No. 22350 of 2018). Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate and Mr. Pardeep Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

**** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 17139 & 22350 of 2018, as according to learned counsel for the parties, the issue involved therein is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 17139 of 2018. 2.

The petitioners have approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking writ of Mandamus, for directing respondent No.1 not to put property baring shops/office spaces situated in Gobindgarh City Centre at NH-1, Mandi Gobdingarh on auction on 16.07.2018, the petitioners have spent their whole life savings/earnings and also purchased three shops/offices space bearing No.112-113-114, covered area 1893 sq. ft. from respondent No.2. It is also stated therein that the complete payment of ` 72.00 lakhs has also been made by the petitioners to respondent No.2. Further, petitioners have prayed that the auction proceedings of the aforesaid three shops/offices be stayed during the pendency of the present writ petition.

JAWALA RAM 2019.03.25 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 17139 of 2018 (O&M) - 2 - 3.

At the outset, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Bank has produced in Court, copies of the communications dated 01st March, 2019, as well as the compromise settlement dated 02nd March, 2019, addressed to M/s MG Gold Realtors (P) Ltd.-respondent No.2, the principal borrower, intimating that its offer for settlement of Bank's dues has been accepted by the respondent-Bank. The copies of aforesaid communication as well as the compromise settlement are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

4.

In view of the above, it was submitted by learned counsel for respondent No.1 - Bank that the present writ petition(s) has been rendered infructuous and the same may be disposed of as such. However, it was prayed that liberty may be granted to the petitioner(s) to apply for revival of petition(s) in case something survives therein.

5.

Ordered accordingly.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE March 18, 2019 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2019.03.25 15:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh