Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/1318520/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13185 of 2008
=====================================================
HARESH
KANTILAL PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
HDFC
BANK LTD - Respondent(s)
=====================================================
Appearance :
MR
DP KINARIWALA for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR CR ABICHANDANI for
Respondent(s) :
1,
=====================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 23/10/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. Notice.
Mr. Abichandani, learned counsel upon instruction, waives notice for
the respondent bank. With the consent of the learned counsel of both
the sides, the matter is taken up for further hearing.
2. The
petitioner by this petition has prayed for appropriate direction to
the respondent to release the property of the petitioner after
accepting the amount mentioned in the notice under Section 13(2) of
the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act ).
3. Heard
Mr. Kinariwala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Abichandani, learned counsel of the respondent Bank.
4. Upon
hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the sides, it appears
that if the notice is to be taken as the basis of recovery, out of
the amount of Rs.7,39,348.69 Ps., the petitioner has already
deposited the amount of Rs.3.50 Lacs with the respondent bank and
therefore, remaining amount would be Rs.3,89,348/-. Out of which the
petitioner during the course of hearing, has tendered three Demand
Drafts totalling Rs.3,71,000/- and the petitioner has further shown
willingness to deposit the amount of Rs.18,000/- towards the
outstanding amount as per notice under Section 13(2) of the Act and
further amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the probable interest from May
till today on the outstanding amount.
5.
Under these circumstances, as the full amount of the loan Account
No.1418599 on the basis on which proceedings were taken under Section
14 of the Act before the learned Magistrate, is paid, it would be
required for the bank to handover the possession of the property.
6. Mr.
Abichandani, learned counsel appearing for the bank submitted that
there is also another loan on the same property bearing Account
No.2899525 and as per the respondent bank, it has to recover the
amount of Rs.3,65,000/-, wherein monthly equal installments EMI was
of Rs.6,641/-.
7. It
appears even if the proceedings are taken under Section 13(2) of the
Act pertaining to the said loan, facts remain that the learned
Magistrate did not pass the order under Section 14 on the basis of
the outstanding amount of other loan. Therefore, it will be for the
petitioner to apply by submitting vital proposal and if the
respondent bank in its banking wisdom is desirous to accept the
proposal, it may do so or in the alternative, if the action is taken
against the petitioner, either side may be at liberty to resort
appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum.
8.
Hence, upon further deposit of Rs.28,000/- within 48 hours, the
possession shall be handed-over by the respondent bank. The bank may
intimate if any other amount to be recovered thereafter. The
petitioner shall also consider the aspect of withdrawal of
proceedings before the D.R.T.
9. For
the outstanding amount of other Loan Account, in view of the
aforesaid observations, no further order deserves to be passed at
this stage, but the petitioner may submit proposal for payment of
second loan also. It will be considered by the respondent bank in
accordance with the law.
10. Disposed
of accordingly.
(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)
ynvyas
Top