Birbal Saini v. State Of Haryana & ORS





IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.8026 of 2018 (O&M) Decided on 04.10.2018 Birbal Saini Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others Respondents * * * CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present :

Mr. Ravinder Singh Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mukesh Kumar Gupta , Advocate for the respondents.

* * * AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.

The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of notice dated 08.11.2017 (Annexure P-3) issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity 'the Act'). 2.

The petitioner is the borrower of loan. State of Haryana; Regional Manager, Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank, District Nuh, Haryana and Ferozepur Jhirka Branch of Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank, District Nuh have been arrayed as respondents No.1 to 3, respectively in the writ petition.

3.

The petitioner, for establishing a Computer Shop took a loan from respondent No.2 on 17.10.2011. In order to secure the loan,


residential house of the petitioner situated at Ward No.11, Saini Mohalla under the Municipal Limits of Ferozepur Jhirka, Distt. Nuh, plot No. 234 and its essential parts measuring 327.77 square yards was mortgaged.

4.

The petitioner defaulted in repayment of loan. The respondent-bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on 30.05.2017. Thereafter, petitioner tried to settle the account with the respondent-bank and deposited
1 lakh in the year 2017 but defaulted later as he suffered injuries when attacked by monkeys and got bed ridden. Notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued to take possession of mortgaged property. The present writ petition has been filed being aggrieved of the recovery proceedings. 5.

On 02.04.2018, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is a balance amount of approximately
4 lakhs and the petitioner is willing to pay the same within a reasonable time. Notice of motion was issued. Subject to the petitioner's depositing
1 lakh within one week, it was ordered that status quo of the physical possession of the residential house be maintained. It was further ordered that the petitioner shall pay another sum of
1 lakh before 10.05.2018 and third installment of
1 lakh on or before 01.06.2018. 6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner is a 80 years old man and is not keeping good health, but deposited
1 lakh after 02.04.2018 and has been able to bring a cheque of
25,000/- today in the Court and is willing to settle the account with the respondent-bank.

7.

Learned counsel for the respondent-bank contended that


the petitioner has not approached the respondent-bank to settle the account.

8.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:
  


  

 

  

 

 

! 

  "#

 $  %
      

  #  &  '   "   '    #  

 "



'"



% "


 %   

 '""    #  #     

%    ' 

%  '% % 
   

 '        "

  "

 
 (                  


      '      

     

     

 '  "" '$  "'  (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE October 04, 2018 pankaj baweja Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No