Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10075/2008 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10075 of 2008
==========================================
RAGHUVIR
HEMAJI SUTHAR
Versus
PUNJAB
NATIONAL BANK
==========================================
Appearance
:
MR DEEPAK VYAS for
Petitioner:1
None for
Respondent:1
==========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
Date
: 06/08/2008
ORAL ORDER
The petition is
thoroughly misconceived more particularly when the petition is filed
after having approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal in the matter
being Appeal No.82 of 2004 which was dismissed by the learned
Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad by order dated
14th October, 2005.
Mr.Vyas,
the learned Advocate for the petitioner has vehemently argued that
the law of Securitization Act is not a good law and the definition
of the term ‘borrower’ which puts the Principal Debtor and the
Guarantor on the same footing is ex-facie bad.
He
further submitted that there is a valuation report of the year 2000
a copy of which is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-‘C’
according to which the property of the petitioner/guarantor was
worth Rs.7 lacs in the year 2000. The learned Advocate submitted
that by necessary implications value of the property has to be more
than Rs.7 lacs in the year 2008. He has submitted that Bank, though
is in know of the value of the property in the year 2000 being seven
lacs of rupees, has decided to fix upset price at Rs.6 lacs for both
the properties i.e. the properties of Principal Borrower and the
Guarantor.
The learned Advocate
for the petitioner was charitable to offer deposit of 10% of Rs.3
lacs if the Court is willing to grant interim relief on such deposit
being made.
The learned Advocate
for the petitioner is ready and willing to leave the matter of
amount of deposit to the Hon’ble Court. This submission is of no
consequence inasmuch the offer made at the initial stage to deposit
of 10% itself is so unreasonable that it cannot be accepted and in
light of that unreasonable offer no heed can be paid to his
subsequent submission.
The petition is found
without any substance, and hence dismissed in limine.
(RAVI
R.TRIPATHI, J.)
Amit/-
Top