Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 293 (UTT)

Parwati Devi v. Bank of Baroda

2016-07-01

V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned possession notice dated 24.05.2016 and auction notice dated 15.06.2016. A writ of mandamus has also been sought for a direction to the respondents to grant some time for repayment of the remaining loan amount of respondent bank by providing entire details/statement of loan amount. 3. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that petitioner is a widow and illiterate lady and is owner of property/land total area 1.06 hectare situated at Village Udaipuri Kamola, Paragna Bhawar Kota, Kaladhungi, Tehsil Kaladhungi District Nainital in khata no.10, 15 and 16 depicted by various khata numbers. Son of the petitioner availed loan from the respondent bank for his business purpose. Petitioner is guarantor of the said loan. While availing the said loan, petitioner’s son got mortgaged the aforesaid land of the petitioner, but due to some financial constraints, he could not deposit the installments on time. Due to non-deposit of installments on time, the Bank issued demand notice to the petitioner. On receiving the demand notice, the petitioner requested for some time but the bank did not pay any heed towards his request and, ultimately on 24.5.2016, respondent bank issued possession notice in respect of the property, showing an amount of Rs. 40,80,653/- due against the petitioner’s son. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready to deposit half of the amount within ten days and the remaining amount shall be deposited within a period of four months. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent bank submitted that the Bank will not proceed further in the matter if the petitioner gives an undertaking that he will deposit half of the outstanding amount within ten days and remaining amount with four months. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on file. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent bank submitted that the Bank will not proceed further in the matter if the petitioner gives an undertaking that he will deposit half of the outstanding amount within ten days and remaining amount with four months. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on file. So far as impugned notice is concerned, the petitioner has an alternative remedy to file an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal but considering the fact that the petitioner has herself agreed to deposit the outstanding loan amount and in the interest of justice, I dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner to deposit 50% of the total outstanding amount within ten days from today and thereafter the remaining amount within four months. The respondent bank shall inform the petitioner in writing about the amount to be paid by the petitioner. In case the amount is paid within the stipulated period, the bank will not proceed further in pursuance of impugned possession notice. 7. In case of any default, this order shall stand vacated automatically. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Interim relief application (CLMA No.6513 of 2016) stands disposed of. 9. There will be no order as to costs.