Sahara Begum Laskar v. State Bank of India and 5 Ors

PageoNo.#o1/2 GAHC010208022024 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/5218/2024o SAHARAoBEGUMoLASKARo W/O-oLATEoSAMSoUDDINoLASKAR,o RESIDENToOFoBONOGRAM,oP.O.-oBHAGAoBAZAR,oP.S.-oDHOLAI,o PIN-o788120,oDISTRICT-oCACHAR,oASSAM. VERSUSo

1.STATEoBANKoOFoINDIAoANDo5oORSo REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoCHIEFoGENERALoMANAGER,o LOCALoHEADoOFFICE,oOPPOSITEoOFoASSAMoSACHIVALAYA,o DISPUR,oGUWAHATI-o781006. 2:THEoBRANCHoMANAGER oSILCHARoBAZARoBRANCH,oSTATEoBANKoOFoINDIAoNAZIRAPATTY oP.O.oANDoP.S.-oSILCHARoDISTRICT-oCACHARoASSAM-o788001. 3:CHIEFoMANAGER,oSTRESSEDoASSETSoRECOVERYoBRANCH oSTATEoBANKoOFoINDIA,o2NDoFLOORoSIGNATUREoSQUAREoMRDoROAD oBAMUNIMAIDAMoGUWAHATI-o781021. 4:RETAILoASSETSoANDoSMALLoANDoMEDIUMoENTERPRISESoCITYoCREDITo CELLo(RASMECCC) oREPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoAUTHORIZEDoOFFICER oSTATEoBANKoOFoINDIAoSILCHARo(10678) o1SToFLOORoAMBARoBUILDINGoUKILPATTYoSILCHAR-o788001. 5:SBIoLIFEoINSURANCEoCOMPANYoLIMITED oREPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoGENERALoMANAGER o SECONDoFLOORoAVANTIKAoNILOY oOPPOSITEoFCIoOFFICEoULUBARIoGUWAHATI-o781007. 6:THEoBRANCHoMANAGER oSBIoLIFEoINSURANCEoCOMPANYoLIMITED Page No.# 2/2 SILCHAR BAZAR BRANCH STATE BANK OF INDIA NAZIRAPATTY P.O. AND P.S.- SILCHAR DISTRICT-CACHAR ASSAM-788001 For the Petitioner : Mr. B.M. Deka, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. B.K. Sen, Advocate for respondent No.3. – BEFORE – HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

03.10.2024 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)

After arguing the matter for quite some time, Mr. B.M. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instruction, has submitted that he may be allowed to withdraw this writ petition while keeping it open for the petitioner to challenge the action of the respondent SBI Life Insurance Company Limited of rejecting the repudiation claim of the petitioner as well as the action of the respondent State Bank of India of initiating proceedings against the petitioner under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 by availing appropriate remedy available to her under the law. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition stands dismissed with the liberty as prayed for.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant