Anil Kumar Rana vs Uco Bank on 12 November, 2009

CWP No.15256 of 2009                                             [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB                       AND HARYANA AT
                CHANDIGARH.



                               C. W. P. No. 15256 of 2009

                               Date of Decision: 12 - 11 - 2009



Anil Kumar Rana                                          ....Petitioner


                               v.

UCO Bank                                                 ....Respondent



CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

                               ***

Present:    Mr.Narinder Lucky, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate
            for the respondent.

                               ***

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for

issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for setting

aside/quashing the impugned order dated 11.9.2009 whereby symbolic

possession of the house of the petitioner has been taken by the respondent-

Bank.

Petitioner took a loan of Rs.4,25,000/- from the respondent-

Bank and mortgaged his residential house with the Bank. Petitioner has

paid number of installments and on the direction of this Court had deposited

Rs.1,40,000/- with the respondent-Bank. Counsel for the respondent-Bank
CWP No.15256 of 2009 [2]

submit that as on 26.10.2009, Rs.3,83,000/- were outstanding against the

petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is

employed with some private concern and get salary of Rs.8,000/- p.m. and

has a family to support. Counsel further submit that commencing from

1.12.2009, petitioner will pay monthly installment of Rs.5,000/- to the

Bank. Further more within three months from 1.12.2009, to reduce the

liability, he will pay Rs.30,000/- to the Bank. Counsel also state that in case

two continuous default take place, the Bank will be at liberty to proceed

against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law.

Counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank has submitted that

concern of the Bank is to secure the loan and earn the interest. Bank in no

way want to unnecessarily harass the common man who has taken the

housing loan. Counsel submit that petitioner is a chronic defaulter and has

not repaid the loan amount timely, his conduct be taken into consideration.

This Court intend to believe and trust the petitioner who is

willing to repay the loan amount. Therefore, in case petitioner deposit

Rs.30,000/- within three months commencing from 1.12.2009 and continues

to pay Rs.5,000/- p.m. from 1.12.2009 onwards, the Bank may regularise the

loan account. Two consecutive default on the part of the petitioner to repay

the loan amount, shall entitle the respondent-Bank to take action in

accordance with the provisions of law.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )
November 12, 2009. JUDGE

RC