Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 695 (UTT)

Kunwar Singh v. District Magistrate, Nainital

2016-10-03

V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : V.K. Bist, J. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 30.08.2016 passed by the District Magistrate, Nainital/respondent no. 1 and the related proceeding under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is the proprietor of J.K. Trading Company. He took the loan from respondent no. 3 in the following manner: Sl. No. Nature of Facility Sanctioned amount (Rs.) 1. Case Credit 20.00 lacs 2. Term Loan (FITL A/c) 1.60 lacs 3. Term loan (House loan) 25.65 lacs 4. Term loan (AAA) 9.35 lacs Total 56.60 lacs 3. In the year 2014-15 petitioner met an accident and was hospitalized for a long time. Thereafter, some dispute arose between the petitioner and his wife and the petitioner had to pay Rs.12,50,000/- to his wife. Due to the personal problems of the petitioner, he could not concentrate on his business and could not pay the due installments in time. Due to non-deposit of installment in time, the respondent Bank declared the loan account of the petitioner as NPA and issued notices under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Vide notice dated 15.03.2016; petitioner was restrained by the Bank under Section 13(4) of the Act from dealing with the properties mortgaged with it. Against the notice dated 15.03.2016, petitioner preferred a petition (SA No. 245 of 2016) before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow. During the pendency of petition before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, respondent no. 3 proceeded before the District Magistrate and the impugned order dated 30.08.2016 was passed by the District Magistrate. Hence this petition. 4. When the case was taken up before this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that now the petitioner is in a position to pay the entire loan amount along with interest in installments. 5. Shri Chiranjeev Singh Bora, Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda is present in the Court. Court asked Shri S.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 3, to seek instructions from the Chief Manager. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 3, on instructions, would submit that the Bank is ready for installments provided Rs. 60 lacs is paid by the petitioner in installments. Court asked Shri S.K. Jain, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 3, to seek instructions from the Chief Manager. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 3, on instructions, would submit that the Bank is ready for installments provided Rs. 60 lacs is paid by the petitioner in installments. He further submitted that petitioner will withdraw the petition filed under Section 17 of the Securitization Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 3 further submits than in case of default, the police authorities be directed to provide necessary help to the respondent no. 3 in order to take actual physical position of the secured assets. Learned counsel for the petitioner agreed for the same. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and in the interest of justice, the writ petition is disposed of in the following manner: (i) First installment of Rs. 20.00 lacs shall be deposited by the petitioner on or before 15.11.2016. (ii) Second installment of Rs. 20.00 lacs shall be deposited by the petitioner on or before 15.02.2017. (iii) Third installment of Rs. 20.00 lacs shall be deposited by the petitioner on or before 15.05.2017. (iii) Rest amount with interest shall be deposited by the petitioner on or before 15.08.2017. 7. In case the loan amount along with interest and recovery charges is paid within the stipulated period, the impugned order dated 30.08.2016 shall stand quashed. 8. In case of any default, this order shall stand recalled automatically and the respondent will be at liberty to proceed further against the petitioner, in accordance with Section 14 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The authorities are directed to provide necessary help to the respondent no. 3 in order to take actual physical possession of the secured assets. 9. In case, amount is deposited, as indicated above, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.