Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 605 (RAJ)

Sapna Devi v. Au Small Finance Bank Limited

2025-03-05

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2025
ORDER : VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J. 1.Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers :- “Quash the impugned order dated 28.02.2024 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Pali, District Pali, Rajasthan (Annexure-4) and Quash the impugned demand notice dated 13.10.2023 issued by the Respondents (Annexure-1); and Quash the fresh impugned demand notice dated 06.03.2024 issued by the Respondents (Annexure-5); Direct the respondents to submit the proper details relating to the loan account, including the information relating to insurance covering the loan. Restrain the Respondents from initiating the auction of the concerned Property; and” 3. Briefly noted the facts in the present writ petition are that husband of the petitioner No.1 availed a credit facility of Rs.16,00,000/- (Rupees : Sixteen Lakhs Only) from the respondent-Bank. He was paying the monthly installments regularly, however, before repaying the entire loan amount, he passed away and the petitioners, who are family members of of late Shri Bharat Khandelwal(husband of petitioner No.1) could not pay the installments on its due date. The total outstanding loan amount was computed as Rs.17,36,170/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs thirty Six Thousand One Hundred and Seventy Only). Therefore, the respondent-bank has proceeded against the petitioners under the provisions of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2002’) and ultimately the order dated 28.02.2024 was passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Pali, District Pali. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Bharat Khandelwal (the husband of the petitioner No.1) was the only earning member of the family and the loan was taken by him, but before repaying the entire loan amount, he passed away. In these circumstances, his family members were facing financial crisis and they could not pay the installments on its due date. Since the respondent-bank had proceeded against the petitioners under the Act of 2002, the present writ petition has been filed and a prayer is being made for giving certain concessions for repayment of the loan amount. In these circumstances, his family members were facing financial crisis and they could not pay the installments on its due date. Since the respondent-bank had proceeded against the petitioners under the Act of 2002, the present writ petition has been filed and a prayer is being made for giving certain concessions for repayment of the loan amount. He further submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated dated 23.04.2024 directed the petitioners to deposit Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees : Fifteen Lakhs Only) in three installments and if the same were paid on time, the proceedings under the Act of 2002 were directed to be stayed. Learned counsel submits that in the faithful compliance of the order dated 23.04.2024, the petitioners have deposited Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees : Fifteen Lakhs Only) and they can also deposit the balance of the due amount of the bank provided some time may be granted to them. Learned counsel further submits that the bank has imposed penalty and other expenses upon the petitioners for non-payment of the installments on time and, therefore, he submits that the same may be directed to be either waived or substantially reduced in the circumstances faced by the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank submits that the case of the petitioners will be considered sympathetically provided they approach the bank with a proposal for ‘One Time Settlement’. 6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the relevant record of the case. 7. Undisputed facts in the present case show that the husband of the petitioner No.1 has taken a loan from the respondent Bank and before the same could be repaid, he passed away. Since he was the only earning member of the family, the family is facing a financial crisis. Despite the financial crunch, the petitioners had deposited an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) in view of the interim order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 23.04.2024. Since the substantial portion of the loan has already been repaid, therefore, for the balance amount, this Court feels that the petitioners may approach the respondent-Bank and the respondent-Bank shall consider the waiver of the penalty, interest and other expenses, taking into consideration the penurious circumstances of the family. 8. It is expected from the bank that in such cases, lenient attitude should be taken by the Financial Authorities and the Bank. 8. It is expected from the bank that in such cases, lenient attitude should be taken by the Financial Authorities and the Bank. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to approach the Bank-Authorities with a proposal for ‘One Time Settlement’ and the bank-Authority is directed to consider the same and decide it sympathetically, in view of the detailed discussions made above. 10. The stay application and other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.