SHARANGDHAR RAI v. CHIEF MANAGER, ALLAHABAD BANK & Anr.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 14009 of 2007 SHARANGDHAR RAI Versus CHIEF MANAGER, ALLAHABAD BANK & ANR ----------- 4
18.08.2008 The petitioner had taken finance from the respondent- Allahabad Bank for purchase of a public carrier truck. The loan was taken in the year 1983 amounting to Rs 2.30 lacs. The vehicle has since met with accident and even the insurance amount has been taken by the Bank, petitioner was still left with substantial amount to pay which now has increased to over Rs 10 lacs. It would, thus, be seen that as against the principal advance of Rs 2.30 lacs, repayments and adjustments and insurance claims, petitioner is now required to repay over Rs 10 lacs with threat of proceedings under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002). It may be stated that in the year 2003, the Bank had compromised the matter with the petitioner for an amount of Rs 4,40,000/- as against which the petitioner had made an initial deposit of Rs 2,20,000/- but defaulted thereafter leaving an unpaid compromise amount of Rs 2,20,000/-. Having heard the matter, in view of the fact that the petitioner is eager to clear his liability and to establish that, pursuant to this Court’s order, has further deposited a sum of Rs 50,000/-, the petitioner would deposit Rs 25,000/- per month starting from 01st September 2008 upto the month of August 2009 and on such deposit being made punctually, considering the past payment already made after 2 compromise, Bank would close accounts and relieve the petitioner in respect of this account. In view of the fact that the vehicle itself has been lost, it would be just and equitable for the Bank to settle the amount as indicated above. So long as petitioner punctually pays the said amount, the Bank would not enforce notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 but in case the petitioner defaults, the Bank would be free to proceed as if no order has been passed by this Court. This disposes of the writ application. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002; SARFAESI Act, 2002 — s. 13(4).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Patna High Court, on 01 Sep 2008.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.