Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/3311/2017 of Manoj Verma Vs Authorized Officer Canara Bank Branch Bageshwar on 28 December 2017
of 2017 Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J. Mr. Sumit Bajaj and Mr. Saurabh Kmar Pandey, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the Bank/respondent. Heard learned counsel for the parties. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner took Cash Credit Limit of
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
WPMS No. 3311 of 2017
Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.
Mr. Sumit Bajaj and Mr. Saurabh Kmar Pandey, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the Bank/respondent.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner took Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 6 lacs from Canara Bank, Bageshwar Branch, District Bageshwar but due to financial crises, petitioner defaulted in repayment of the loan, therefore proceedings under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement Security Interest Act, 2002 were initiated against him.
Thus feeling aggrieved petitioner has approached this Court seeking following reliefs:
“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned possession notice dated 12.05.2016 (annexure-3) and impugned letter dated 21.09.2017 (annexure-4) issued by respondent bank.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to adopt any coercive measures against the petitioner in pursuance of impugned possession notice dated 12.05.2016 (annexure-3) and impugned letter dated 21.9.2017 (annexure-4) issued by respondent bank.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready and willing to repay the outstanding amount of loan but some reasonable time may be given to him for the purpose. To this, learned counsel for the respondent assures that if petitioner approaches the Bank with request for time for liquidating the loan, the Bank will sympathetically look into the matter.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority, through Manager of the concerned Bank, by making a representation within a week from today. If such representation is made, the same shall be decided within two weeks, in accordance with law.
Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
Mamta
(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.) 28.12.2017