Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 615 (GAU)

Dipika Bora v. Assam Gramin Vikash Bank

2018-04-09

ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, AJIT SINGH

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : AM Bujor Barua, J. Heard Mr. A. Goyal learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents inasmuch as, the matter has been given a final consideration at the motion stage itself, without issuing notice. 2. The petitioner stood a guarantor to a loan of Rs.2,50,00,000/- given by the Ganeshguri Branch of the respondent Assam Gramin Vikash Bank to M/s Pee Bee & Associates, being proprietary a firm of one Mr. Pradip Bhuyan, which was engaged in the business of manufacturing of steel. 3. The said loanee had defaulted in payment of the loan obtained from the respondent Bank and as a consequence, as per the petitioner, the amount payable as on 27.09.2016 was Rs.2,98,73,822/-. But however, a notice under Section 13 (2) read with Section13 (13) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 25.05.2015 was issued requiring the petitioner to discharge the full liability amounting to Rs.3,16,32,131/-. 4. Although no such reply of the petitioner against the notice dated 25.05.2015 is available on record, but however, Mr. A. Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to certain subsequent communications from the petitioner dated 03.07.2017, 29.07.2017, 13.11.2017 and 06.01.2018 by which, various amounts were offered by the petitioner to the respondent Bank towards mitigating the liability of the loan. While the communication of 10.07.2017 offered a proposal of Rs.2,20,00,000/-, the later communication of 06.01.2018 had increased the offer upto Rs.2,80,00,000/-. 5. It is in the aforesaid circumstance, this writ petition is preferred for a direction to the respondent Bank to settle the loan account of M/s Pee Bee & Associates in terms of the communication dated 06.01.2018. 6. This Court is of the view that to consider or not to consider the settlement of a loan as per the offer contained in the communication dated 06.01.2018 is the prerogative of the respondent Bank and it is more so, in view of the fact that the notice dated 25.05.2015 under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (13) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 demands an amount of Rs.3,16,32,131/- in the year 2015 itself. 7. In such circumstance, we find the petition to be devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 8. 7. In such circumstance, we find the petition to be devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 8. But however, it is provided that the dismissal of the writ petition may not stand as a bar on the part of the respondent Bank to consider any offer made by the petitioner, but at the same time, it is further provided that such liberty be not construed to be a direction by this Court requiring the respondent Bank to consider any such proposal.