- Court
- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- Decided
- 29 October 2023
- Case no.
- WRIC 32467/2023
Judgment
Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32467 of 2023 Petitioner :- Devendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Kumar Srivastava,Somesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Agrawal Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Communication dated 2.6.2023 filed today be kept on record. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3. Contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that proceedings under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were undergone against a dead person i.e. his dead father. This he states that the bank had got done despite the fact that it was aware of the fact that the petitioner's father had died. Learned cousnel for the respondent bank however has produced the communication dated 2.6.2023 before the Court, in which the bank admits that now when they were in the know of the fact that father of the petitioner was dead and that they were ready to negotiate with the petitioner with regard to the payment of the loan. Under such circumstances, no interference is required. The petitioner if is ready to make the deposit, he may respond to the communication dated 2.6.2023. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 30.10.2023 P.S.Parihar High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Source: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.