Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1642 (JHR)

Allahabad Bank v. State of Jharkhand

2012-11-22

N.N.TIWARI

body2012
ORDER I.A. No. 3338 of 2012 By the Court.-Heard the parties. 2. On the matter of stay, while issuing notices to respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by order dated 15th October. 2012. this Court had granted ad-interim stay of operation of the impugned order dated 11.10.2012. 3. On notice the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have appeared and filed counter-affidavit. It has been stated. inter alia., that one Smt. Jayanti Devi had availed the cash credit of Rs. 60 lacs from Allahabad Bank. GEL Church Branch. Ranchi in which one Vikram kumar Tiwary was the guarantor and extended equitable mortgage of land and building situated at village Chiraundi. P.S. Baraitu. Thana No. 186. khata No. 74. Plot No. 193. Sub-Plot N. 193/3. Subsequently the borrower's account was declared Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 28.4.2012. 4. The authorised officer of the bank issued notice dated 30.4.2012 under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as the SARFAESI Act) addressed to the guarantor with a copy to the borrower calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs. 63.67 lacs with interest. 5. So far as the claims of these respondents are concerned according to them, they have purchased flat Nos. 101 and 202 in an apartment situated at Village Chiraundi. They have purchased the said flats on payment of consideration amount of the market value of the property by virtue of registered sale-deeds dated 30.3.2012 and 21.3.2012. Suddenly on 4.10.2012 the bank officials along with the Police force and Magistrate forcibly evicted the entire family and children from the said flats throwing away all the belongings which were later on described in the shape of an inventory. 6. The respondents subsequently, came to know that the same was done in execution of the order passed by learned Deputy Commissioner. Ranchi in exercise of power conferred under Section 14(i)(ii) of the SARFAESI Act. The respondents then approached the Deputy Commissioner and stated all the facts including the fact that they were surprisingly and suddenly dispossessed from their residential apartment/flats for their no fault. Even no notice or opportunity was given to them for either explaining their position or making any alternative accommodation. 7. The respondents then approached the Deputy Commissioner and stated all the facts including the fact that they were surprisingly and suddenly dispossessed from their residential apartment/flats for their no fault. Even no notice or opportunity was given to them for either explaining their position or making any alternative accommodation. 7. Learned Deputy Commissioner, having heard the parties and realising that the order was issued for providing Magistrate and force to take possession and that the possession of the guarantor Vikram Kumar Tiwary, but the bank with the help of the Magistrate has also sealed the belongings and the flats of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 , which is wholly unjustified modified his order. 8. Learned Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Certificate Officer directed Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank. GEL Church Complex, Main Road, Ranchi for release of the flats and all belongings of the said respondents. 9. The petitioner has challenged the said order in this writ petition. As aforesaid on 15.10.2012 while issuing notice to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 interim order was granted staying the operation of the said order till the next date of hearing. Since the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 appeared this order is being passed in the matter of stay after hearing both the parties. 10. According to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, they are the purchasers of two flats on payment of considerable amount of consideration and they had never any knowledge about the said SARFAESI Case. Though they were in possession of the said flats. no notice was given to the respondents and no opportunity of representing their claim was ever afforded to them. 11. From the record I find that in the order of the Deputy Commissioner, there was no order of dispossessing these persons from the property. The order was against one Vikram Kumar Tiwary. But the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were dispossessed and all their household belongings were also sealed. They were not given any opportunity to remove the belongings and make alternative arrangement for shifting. Learned Deputy Commissioner realized the situation and by his order dated 11.10.2012 directed the Branch Manager of the concerned bank to release the flats and the belongings to the said respondents. 12. The said order of learned Deputy Commissioner has been challenged in the instant writ petition. Learned Deputy Commissioner realized the situation and by his order dated 11.10.2012 directed the Branch Manager of the concerned bank to release the flats and the belongings to the said respondents. 12. The said order of learned Deputy Commissioner has been challenged in the instant writ petition. Legality of the order is yet to be decided in the main writ petition at the appropriate time. Allowing stay of the impugned rider would indirectly mean allowing the main relief prayed for in the writ petition at this stage itself. 13. Considering the above. I find no ground for making the ad-interim order absolute. The interim order dated 15.10.2012 is accordingly vacated. 14. In view of the above no separate order is required on I.A. No. 3338/2012 filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 15. LA. No. 3338/2012 is accordingly disposed of. Ordered accordingly.