Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 179 (JHR)

Minni Devi v. Chairman, Bank of Baroda

2008-02-18

N.N.TIWARI

body2008
ORDER Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. I.A. No. 625 of 2008: 1. In this I.A., the petitioner has prayed for stay of the notice of auction dated 11.2.2008 published in the daily newspaper Prabhat Khabar. 2. It has been stated that the respondent, in exercise of power under Section 13(4) of S.R.F.A., E.S.I.F. Act, 2000, has directed the assets of the petitioner and another co-sharer to be sold by auction as the landed property was mortgaged for taking the loan. It has been stated that the next date i.e. 2.8.2007 was fixed to deposit amount by the petitioner, but she could not arrange the same in time, as directed by this Court. Earlier, it has been stated that the petitioner alone is not the owner of the property and there are other co-sharers also. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submitted that almost on the same ground, the petitioner has been able to obtain the order of stay of the auction process vide order dated 23.7.2007 by giving assurance that whatever the genuine dues of the bank may have, the same shall be paid if some time is granted to the petitioner to arrange the money. In view of the said stand and the assurance of making payment of all the dues to the bank, this Court by the said order directed the bank not to take any coercive action against the petitioner till the next date fixed. The next date fixed was 2nd August, 2007, but not a farthing was paid by the petitioner in accordance with the said undertaking before this Court. The respondents even thereafter waited for several months, but even after lapse of several months, nothing has been paid by the petitioner; (The respondents having no alternative have published the impugned notice for auction. When the notice for auction has been issued, the petitioner has again rushed to this Court by filing this Interlocutory Application and praying for stay of the auction process. It has been stated that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hand. She had misrepresented before this Court that all the amounts shall be paid though she had not to pay any amount. On that misrepresentation and undertaking, the Court has granted interim relief. It has been stated that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hand. She had misrepresented before this Court that all the amounts shall be paid though she had not to pay any amount. On that misrepresentation and undertaking, the Court has granted interim relief. The petitioner, thus, conveniently delayed the auction process for more than six months by her malicious design. The petitioner does not deserve any sympathy and she is not entitled to the relief, prayed for. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials, appearing on record. 5. On perusal of the order dated 23.7.2007, I find that the petitioner has made statement that she will pay the entire genuine dues of the bank, if some time is granted to her to arrange the amount. On the said assurance, this Court granted her time till 22nd August, 2007 directing the respondent-Bank not take any coercive action against the petitioner till then. But in spite of the same, neither any farthing has been paid nor any prayer was made for extension of the prescribed time for payment. The instant application for stay of the process of auction has been filed when notice for auction is again issued by the respondents. The petitioner this time has taken ground that the property also belongs to some other co-sharers and that the petitioner could not arrange the money and could not deposit the same as directed by this Court. The stand taken in this Interlocutory Application is contrary to the stand taken on 23.7.2007 on the basis of which the said interim order was passed directing the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner. 6. In view of the above, I find no ground to entertain the prayer made in this Interlocutory Application. This interlocutory application is, accordingly, rejected. 7. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted and reiterated that the petitioner had no intention to back out from the assurance given on 23.7.2007 and she is ready to pay the amount even today. Under the circumstance beyond her control, she could not earlier pray for modification of the order of this Court. Learned Counsel has, thus, prayed to give her a last chance to pay the amount before putting her property on auction. 8. Under the circumstance beyond her control, she could not earlier pray for modification of the order of this Court. Learned Counsel has, thus, prayed to give her a last chance to pay the amount before putting her property on auction. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that if the petitioner pays the entire amount even today, the bank shall not proceed for auction. 9. In view of the above, the petitioner is at liberty to pay the amount of the banks dues, before holding auction. If the petitioner pays the entire amount, there shall be no auction of the property, in question.