Manoj Chauhan v. State Bank of India and 2 Others

Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35431 of 2023 Petitioner :- Manoj Chauhan Respondent :- State Bank Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Satish Chaturvedi Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

¶1Heard Sri Raj Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Satish Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing for the Bank.

¶2By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing demand notice dated 16.09.2023 issued by respondent no.2 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(3) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as SARFAESI Act).

¶3Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a loan was taken by the petitioner. He had also mortgaged a property bearing H.No.256 A, Nalanda Towan Mauza Barauli Aheer, Tajganj Ward, Agra, 282001 was in the names of Mrs. Manoj Chauhan and Sh. Jaypal Singh Chauhan. Learned counsel has further pointed out that when certain payments of the loan installments were not made, the creditor Bank initiated proceedings of recovery under the SARFAESI Act by issuing notice dated 16.09.2023 under the SARFAESI Act and demanded a sum of Rs. 17,53,979.00/- alongwith interest and other charges. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the impugned notice dated 16.09.2023 and asserted that the Bank has taken symbolic possession of the mortgaged property and would be strongly taking further steps to recover the dues by auctioning the mortgaged property.

¶4At the very outset learned counsel for the petitioner has proposed to deposit 25% of the outstanding amount within a period of one month from today, with an undertaking that the remaining amount shall be paid in next three equal monthly installments.

¶5Learned counsel for the Bank does not dispute the fact that pursuant to the recovery proceedings including the impugned notice dated 16.09.2023 no auction proceedings have been fixed. He, however, states that the Bank has no objection if the borrower is willing to clear the debt by paying 25% of the outstanding amount within a period of one month from today and remaining amount in next three equal monthly installments.

¶6In view of the above stand of the learned counsel for the parties, at this stage, without looking into the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to afford an opportunity to the borrower to clear the debt by paying 25% of the outstanding amount within a period of one month from today, and the remaining amount in next three equal monthly installments. The outstanding debt be directed to be paid with up-to-date interest.

¶7Needless to say that when the last installment is paid by the petitioner, the bank shall inform the petitioner the interest amount which would have accrued by the last date of payment and it shall be paid along with the last installment.

¶8We clarify that, if, the amount as has been promised by the petitioner is not deposited as per the undertaking then the Bank shall be free to recover the debt pursuant to the impugned notice.

¶9With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 31.10.2023 Raj High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad