Dream Public Sr. Sec. School And ANR. v. Bank Of India And ORS.

CWP No. 30054 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No. 30054 of 2017 Date of decision: 28.12.2017 Dream Public Sr. Sec. School and another ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Bank of India and others

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL

Present:

Mr. Aftab Singh Khara, Advocate, for the petitioners.

G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed directing the respondent-bank not to initiate the proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 against the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners are ready to pay Rs.7,00,000/- and the balance of Rs.15,00,000/- would be paid by April, 2018. It is submitted that an application has already been filed for extension of time on 20.12.2017 but the Presiding Officer is not available. A perusal of the order dated 21.07.2017 (Annexure P-2) would go on to show that the DRT-II, Chandigarh had noticed that the amount due was Rs.39,75,532/- as on 01.10.2016. To test the bona fides, a conditional order was passed that a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- would be deposited by 28.09.

2017 and the balance alongwith the base rate of interest simple on reducing balance on or before 28.12.2017. A condition was put that in case the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was not deposited, status quo would stand automatically vacated and the appellant would have to hand over free and vacant possession of the property on 29.12.2017. Thus, the balance amount was to be paid by 28.12.2017 and the bank was given liberty to proceed in the matter in accordance with law from 29.12.2017. It is, thus, apparent that apart from Rs.5,00,000/- which was initially deposited, the balance has not been paid and the conditional order Shivani Gupta 2017.12.

CWP No. 30054 of 2017 has not been complied with. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners having already filed an application before the DRT-II, Chandigarh which is already pending, it is not for this Court to grant extension of period.

The above facts do not make out a case for extension as prima facie, the bonafides of the petitioner apparently seem to be lacking. It is for the concerned Tribunal to pass any order, if it so feels. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (G.S. SANDHAWALIA) JUDGE 28.12.2017 (SUDHIR MITTAL) shivani JUDGE Shivani Gupta 2017.12.29 12:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document