Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7869/2008 2/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7869 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
KISHANCHAND
TRIKAMDAS VALECHA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DENA
BANK - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RC JANI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR.D
K.PUJ for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 04/09/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. The
petitioner by this petition, has challenged the order passed by the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate for assisting the Bank to take over
the possession of the property under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act,2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
2. It
appears that initially this Court had issued notice and thereafter,
various orders were passed directing the petitioner to deposit the
amount with the respondent Bank. Today, when the matter is taken up
for hearing, Mr. Puj, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank
confirms the position that all arrears of the installments are duly
paid by the petitioner and now the petitioner will be required to pay
regular installments as and when it becomes due.
3. Mr.
Jani, learned advocate for the petitioner states that henceforth
regular installment shall be paid as and when it becomes due.
4. In
view of the above, as the account is regularized and the petitioner
has also shown willingness to pay regular installment as and when it
becomes due, the action under the Act, would not survive since there
would not be outstanding due. So far as future liabilities are
concerned, the parties may abide by agreement of loan transactions.
5. As
the respondent Bank invoked power under the Act and had approached
before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and based on the same, the
learned Metropolitan Magistrate had passed order for providing
assistance of the police for taking over the possession, such
impugned order under Section 14 of the Act would also not survive, in
view of subsequent developments referred to hereinabove.
6. Hence,
present petition is disposed of with the observation that the action
of the bank in view of the aforesaid fact as well as the order passed
by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, both under the Act, which are
impugned in the present petition would not survive. It is also
clarified that for the future recovery of the loan, the parties may
abide by the terms and conditions of the agreement. In the event,
there is any failure on the part of the petitioner to pay the amount,
the bank shall be at liberty to resort to an appropriate proceedings
under the Act in accordance with law and at that stage, right and
contentions of both the sides under the Act shall remain open.
Disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to cost.
(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)
ynvyas
Top