Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 12 (GAU)

AMARJIT SINGH SAHNI v. PUNJAB, AND SIND BANK

2014-01-03

A.K.GOSWAMI, A.M.SAPRE

body2014
JUDGMENT (A.M. Sapre, C.J.) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners claimed following reliefs against the Respondent-Bank : “In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to issue Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why appropriate writ/order/direction should not be issued (i) setting aside and quashing the Notice dated 19.5.2012 (Annexure-1) as well as the letter dated 18.6. 2012 (Annexure-3) issued by the Respondent No.3 so far as the same relates to your Petitioners and (ii) further directing the Respondent Nos.1, & 3 not to take any action on the Petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid Notice dated 19.5.2012 (Annexure-1) and letter dated 18.6.2012 (Annexure-3); Call for the records of the case and on perusal of the records and after hearing the parties, be pleased to make the Rule absolute, And be pleased to (i) set aside and quash the Notice dated 19.5.2012 (Annexure-1) as well as the letter dated 18.6.2012 (Annexure-3) issued by the Respondent No.3 so far as the same relates to Your petitioners and (ii) direct the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 not to take any action on the Petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid Notice dated 19.5.2012 (Annexure-1) and letter dated 18.6.2012 (Annexure-3); and And/or pass such further order or orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper. AND In the interim be further pleased to stay the operation of the Notice dated 19.5.2012 (Annexure-1) and/or any further action of the Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3 in pursuance of the aforesaid Notice dated 19.5.2012;” The matter then came up for hearing for passing appropriate interim orders. On a prayer being made by the petitioners in relation to the subject matter in dispute, on 22nd August, 2012, this court was pleased to pass the following interim order : “Learned counsel for the petitioners says that originally the loan amount was Rs.4.90 crores and thereafter, the Bank has made claim for more amount towards further loan of Rs.7 crores, which the petitioners dispute. The petitioners are prepared to pay the admitted amount with interest within six months. If the amount is not paid, the petition may be treated to have been dismissed. In view of the above statement, issue notice to Respondent No.1. The petitioners are prepared to pay the admitted amount with interest within six months. If the amount is not paid, the petition may be treated to have been dismissed. In view of the above statement, issue notice to Respondent No.1. Pending further consideration, the Bank may not proceed with the recovery proceedings against the petitioners but will be at liberty to take possession of the properties at Gurgaon and Mohali and permit raising of funds against the said property by way of tripartite agreement between the petitioners, the Bank and a third party. List for further consideration on 3rd December, 2012.” It is not in dispute that the aforesaid interim order dated 22.8.2012 was challenged by the Respondent Bank in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).129 of 2013 before the Supreme Court of India. It is also not in dispute that on 25.11.2013 the SLP filed by the Respondent Bank was dismissed by the Supreme Court by passing the following order : “Since the impugned order is in the nature of an interim order, we decline to interfere therewith in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.” It is with this background that now matter is listed before this Court for passing appropriate orders. Learned counsel appearing for the parties however at the outset submitted that in compliance to the interim order dated 22.8.2012, the Respondent (Bank) has already taken possession of the immovable properties belonging to the petitioners which are situated at Gurgaon and Mohali for their disposal for realization of their outstanding loan amount. In our considered view, therefore there remains nothing for this Court to decide any legal issue arising in the case because even learned counsel appearing for the parties submitted that the matter can be now disposed of finally by permitting the respondent to proceed with the sale of the properties of the petitioners situated at Gurgaon and Mohalil and adjust their dues which are outstanding and after making adjustment, refund the surplus, if remains, to the petitioners. We are inclined to accept the submission made by learned counsels. Accordingly and in the light of the forgoing discussion, we are inclined to dispose of this writ petition and, while doing so permit the respondent (Bank) to proceed with the sale of the properties of the petitioners mentioned above. We are inclined to accept the submission made by learned counsels. Accordingly and in the light of the forgoing discussion, we are inclined to dispose of this writ petition and, while doing so permit the respondent (Bank) to proceed with the sale of the properties of the petitioners mentioned above. Needless to observe, the respondent (Bank) shall ensure fetching of the best available market price of the properties in question and will adjust the sale amount received against their outstanding dues and after making final adjustment will refund the balance amount, if remains and if occasion so arises to the petitioners. Every effort would be made to sell the properties in question in best mode available including by public auction, if found feasible or/and practicable so that it may fetch best maximum sale price. We also grant liberty to the petitioners to arrange for the best buyers who can offer best price only with a view to ensure that best available market price of the properties is fetched. Needless to say, the respondent would obtain at least two reports from approved property valuers in relation to the properties for sale to ascertain the market prices prevalent in the area. Let the proceedings for sale and finalization of the account, as directed, be completed within six months as an outer limit. Liberty is granted to the parties to raise their grievance, if necessary, in accordance with law. No cost.