M/S Shine Overseas v. Canara Bank And ANR.

CWP-3886-2018 -1HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-3886-2018 Date of Decision: February 19, 2018 M/s Shine Overseas, Village and Post Office Kachhwa, Karnal .....Petitioner

Versus

Canara Bank and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHEKHER DHAWAN 1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

Yes/No 2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No.

3.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No .......

Present:

Mr.Vaibhav Parashar, Advocate for the petitioner. ........

SURYA KANT, J.

The petitioner is a partnership firm which runs a Rice Mill and has availed loan facility from the respondent-Bank. As the petitioner failed to pay the due installments, its account was classified as 'NPA' and the Bank has taken measures under Section 13 read with Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The total liability of petitioner on 01.02.2017 was `2,06,96,278.00/-. Alongwith future interest, the due amount as on date is obviously much more. The Bank has, as a last resort, put the petitioner's 'secured assets' on E-auction, which is scheduled to be held on 26.02.2018. The petitioner, at this juncture, claims that it is ready to pay over-due amount and alternatively is also ready to clear the entire loan amount save Meenu 2018.02.22 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh that some reasonable time is granted to sell other properties owned by the

CWP-3886-2018 -2petitioner-firm. In our considered view, the appropriate recourse for the petitioner is to submit a viable proposal to the respondent-Bank alongwith some upfront amount and show its bona fide to the satisfaction of the bank authorities.

[2] The writ petition is, thus, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit a proposal before 26.02.2018 alongwith upfront amount of not less than `10.00 lacs alongwith a time schedule within which the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the loan amount. In case the respondent-Bank is apparently satisfied with the offer to be made by the petitioner, the sale may not be confirmed till an appropriate decision is taken on the petitioner's proposal.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE February 19, 2018 ( SHEKHER DHAWAN ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No Meenu 2018.02.22 15:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh