Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 84 (GAU)

CHITRA BARMAN v. ASSAM GRAMIN VIKASH BANK

2014-01-23

A.M.SAPRE, UJJAL BHUYAN

body2014
JUDGMENT (A.M. Sapre, C.J.) Having heard Mr. P.D. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the records of the case, we find absolutely no merit in this petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned notices dated 28.11.2013 and 18.12.2013 issued by Respondent – The Assam Gramin Vikas Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for realisation of their outstanding dues from the petitioner (borrower) for more than one reason. In the first place, even according to the petitioner, they having entered into an agreement with the respondent Bank vide letter dated 1.3.2013 (Annexure-6) and did not ensure its compliance by making the payment to respondent Bank much less in terms of the agreement which she was under obligation to make, the respondent Bank has become entitled to take recourse to legal remedies to recover their dues as provided in law under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Secondly, it is around now one year that the petitioner did not pay any money to respondent pursuant to agreement which they were required to pay by 31.3.2013. Thirdly, it is not their case that agreement in question was entered into with respondent either by any coercive method adopted by respondent on them or by playing fraud or misrepresentation and, therefore, she did not ensure its compliance in the manner agreed upon in such illegal and enforcable agreement. We, therefore, see no justification to entertain this petition as in our opinion it does not disclose debatable issue on facts/law. Learned counsel for the petitioners however contended that the petitioners may be given some more time to pay the money in terms of the agreement dated 1.3.2013 (Annexure-6). Suffice it to say, this contention cannot be accepted by this Court. The petitioners in our view are always free to approach the Bank and request for extension of time to pay. It is then for the Bank to decide whether to grant time or not. We neither express any opinion nor we go into these issues because these issues solely rest with the Bank to consider and not for Court to decide. It is then for the Bank to decide whether to grant time or not. We neither express any opinion nor we go into these issues because these issues solely rest with the Bank to consider and not for Court to decide. It is for these reasons, we find no merit in the petition which thus fails and is hereby dismissed in liminie. No cost.