Ashok Kumar & ANR v. State Of Haryana And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.26102 of 2017 Decided on 01.10.2018 Ashok Kumar and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others Respondents * * * CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JUDGE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN, JUDGE Present :
Mr. Deepak Agnihotri, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Daisy Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate for the respondent No.6-bank.
* * * AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of notice issued by Tehsildar-cum-Duty Magistrate, Nilokheri, District Karnal, published in newspaper on 11.09.2017 (Annexure P-2), directing the petitioners to handover the possession of the mortgaged property.
2.
State of Haryana; the District Magistrate, Karnal; the Tehsildar-cum-Duty Magistrate, Nilokheri, District Karnal; Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFC Ltd.), registered Office, Mumbai; Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFC Bank Ltd.), regional Office, Chandigarh and Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (HDFC Bank Ltd.), branch
office Nilokheri, District Karnal have been arrayed as respondents No.1 to 6, respectively, in the writ petition. 3.
The petitioners took a housing loan of 14 lakhs from respondent No.4 to 6. The agreed rate of interest was 10.40% per annum. The loan was to be repaid in equal monthly installments (EMI's) of 15,476/- each. The loan was to be repaid in a period of 15 years. The petitioners availed another housing loan of 6 lakhs from respondent No.4 to 6. The agreed rate of interest was 12.75% per annum. The loan was to be repaid in 15 years in EMI's of 7,494/- each. In order to secure the loans, House bearing MC No.15/P-2A, Plot No.4 (measuring 150 sq. yards) located in Shanti Nagar, Ward No.2, Neelokheri, Tehsil and District Karnal was mortgaged. 4.
There was default in repayment of installments. The petitioners made a request to the bank to re-schedule the installments. Request was not acceded to and recovery proceedings were initiated under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity 'the Act'). Notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued on 07.10.2015. As per the notice, there was due amount of 20,27,785/- as on 31.07.2015. The Bank approached respondent No.2 under Section 14 of the Act and order was passed on 17.10.2016 for taking over possession of the mortgaged property. The notice was published in the newspaper for taking over possession of the mortgaged property. Aggrieved of the recovery proceedings, the present writ petition has been filed.
5.
On 15.11.2017, the counsel for the petitioners contended
that the petitioners have already deposited an amount of 1 lakh and they would deposit another sum of 1 lakh within one week and will clear the defaulted amount of overdue installments thereafter. Notice of motion was issued to respondent No.6 only and subject to petitioners' depositing 1 lakh, status quo regarding possession of the property in dispute was ordered to be maintained. 6.
After complying with the undertaking given on 15.11.2017, during the pendency of the writ petition, petitioners deposited another sum of 50,000/-. On 20.08.2018, counsel for the petitioners undertook that a demand draft of 1 lakh would be produced to show their bona fides.
7.
Today, a demand draft of 1 lakh has been produced in the Court and the same has been handed over to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank.
8.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
9.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that demand draft of 1 lakh produced today may be adjusted towards the overdue amount. The petitioners undertake to clear the defaulted installments alongwith reasonable interest and they would also deposit the installments accruing upto 30.11.2018. It was submitted that the petitioners would pay three monthly installments in advance. 10.
Learned counsel for the respondent-bank argued that the account has already been declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) and moreover, the petitioners have not approached the bank for regularizing the account.
11.
It would be appropriate to note here that classifying of the
account as NPA is not an irreversible act, until and unless the facts of the individual case warrants otherwise. On payment of overdue amount alongwith interest for the delayed period, the account can be regularized.
12.
The Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Oswal Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. vs. Reserve Bank of India and others, CWP No.13888 of 2015, in its decision dated 11.04.2016, relying upon Clauses 4.2.5 and 4.2.7 of the Master Circular of Reserve Bank of India and concurring with the decision of the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Sravan Dall Mill P. Limited Vs. Central Bank of India and another 2010 AIR (AP) 35 held as under:
! "
# # $ " % # & # '
%( ) *
* # + & ) ) $ , # &%
) #) & ) )
&
# " % %
#
-. ( )
% ) #
+
"
/ 0+
# 12"
# #
#
% + )
# #+ ,
# +
)
) , #
%
#
2 13.
Keeping in view the above decision of the Division Bench of this Court and the undertaking given by the petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
! "
#
! "
#
$ %
& $
!
'(%
)
*
+
#
,
-
( ! '
.
! "
14.
However, it is clarified that in case of default by the petitioners to adhere to the undertaking given in this Court or in making payment of installments due in future, the bank shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE October 01, 2018 pankaj baweja Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes / No Whether reportable :
Yes / No