M/S Hotel Sky Inn And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9020 of 2018 Decided on 29.08.2018 M/s. Hotel Sky Inn, Hisar and others Petitioners

Versus

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

Mr. Ajay Jain, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate for the respondents.

* * * AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.

The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of letter dated 28.03.2018 (Annexure P-4).

2.

The petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm, petitioner No.2 is one of its partner and Petitioner No.3 is the guarantor. State of Haryana; Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Hisar; Tehsildar-cum-Executive Magistrate, Hisar, Superintendent of Police, Hisar; Station House Officer, Police Station, Hisar, State Bank of India (Stressed Assets Recovery Branch), Chandigarh and State Bank of India, Small and Medium Enterprises Branch, Hisar have been arrayed as respondents No.1 to 7 respectively in the writ petition. 3.

The petitioners No.1 and 2 took a loan of
2 crores from respondent No.7.


4.

The petitioners committed default in repayment of loan and the account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 28.06.2015. The respondent-bank issued notice dated 29.06.2015 under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act'). As per notice, there was an outstanding amount of
2,09,26,690/- as on 29.06.2015. Thereafter, notice dated 02.09.2015 under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued. Respondent No. 7 moved an application under Section 14 of the Act before respondent No.2. The application was allowed vide order dated 12.10.2015 and respondent no.3 was directed to take over the physical possession of the mortgaged property with the assistance of the police. 5.

As the possession was not being taken over, the respondent No.7-bank filed CWP No. 5850 of 2018. The petition was disposed of vide order dated 12.03.2018. The operative portion of the order is reproduced as under:



 
 

  
      
    




 

  

     
   
 
 

 

 

    



 
 


 


 

 
    

  
   
 

  ! "
  

   
 

    

#!#$!$#"


       
       %  
  

 

 
   


 

 6.

In compliance with the order of the High Court, the respondent No.6 conveyed to the petitioners, the minimum amount payable to the bank. The petitioners had grievance against the said letter and hence approached respondent No. 6 to issue a fresh letter conveying the minimum balance amount for settlement of account. Thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed. 7.

Notice of motion was issued. Learned counsel for respondents No. 6 and 7 submitted that the bank came up with a new One Time Settlement proposal. Under the new policy, the bank offered a proposal to the petitioners and the same has been accepted by the petitioners. It was further stated that in compliance with the proposal, the petitioners have deposited certain amounts. 8.

In view of the statement made by the learned counsel for respondents No.6 to 7, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous.

9.

However, it is clarified that the petitioners would be at liberty to revive the writ petition if the statement made by the respondents No. 6 and 7 is found to be incorrect. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE 29.08.2018 pankaj baweja Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes / No Whether reportable :

Yes / No