Judgment · High Court

Heard Mr. D.Chakraborty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.Dutta, learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank. By filing this petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the C onstitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the sale notice issued b y the State Bank of India, SARB,UKILPATTY ::SILCHAR-788001 (Annexure-H) dated 28 .10.2013, whereby the petitioner’s property described in first column of the sal e notice is put to sale for realization of outstanding loan amount given by the Bank to the petitioner. The relevant description of the property specified in the sale notice is given a s under: (cid:28) & STATE BANK OF INDIA SARB, UKILPATTY:: SALE NOT ICE SILCHAR-788 001 In exercise of powers under the Sec uritisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security I nterest Act 2002 and Security interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and pursuant to the possession of security assets of the borrower /guarantor mentioned hereunde r taken by the Authorized Officer for recovery of the secured debts of State Ban k of India, SARB, Silchar as mentioned against name of the borrower mentioned he reunder, offer are invited by the undersigned for purchase of the assets as per brief particulars given hereunder: Description of the property Borrower :M/S Sneha Enterprise Prop: Shri Indranil Mazumdar Property: Reserved price Earnest money Land measuring 3 Kathas a) 3 Chataks, 14 Gondas, under Registered Sale Deed No.

Rs.11.62 lacs Rs.1,16,200/ - 225 dated 21.01.2009 in the name of Shri Indranil Mazumdar under Dag No.2138 of 2nd R.S. Patta No.182, Holding No. 401 of Ward No.4, Land measuring 03 Kathas, Mouza Silchar Town of Pargana- Barakpar, Dist: Cahar. b) 08 Chataks Registered Sale deed Rs.2.80 lacs Rs.28,000/- No. 3645 dated 24.8.2007 in the name of Smti Sarmistha Paul under Dag No.527 of 2nd RS Patta No.167 and Dag No.520 of 2nd RS Patta No.174, Mouza Tarapur Part-VIII, Pargna :Barakpar, District: Cachar. At the very out-set, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he does not have any objection for sale of the property described above in terms of the sale notice. His argument is that the case of the petitioner may be examined by the respondent-Bank keeping in view the guidelines of one time settlement scheme evo lved by the RBI so that petitioner’s case can be finally settled. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank however submits that if the peti tioner ensures compliance of the provisions of one-time scheme though it has sin ce expired, then the Bank will make endeavour to examine the case of the petiti oner on its merits; accordingly.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the r ecord of the case, and keeping in view the submissions made by the learned couns el for the parties as mentioned above, we are inclined to dispose of this Writ P etition by giving the following directions . The Respondent-Bank shall give effect to the sale notice (Annexure-H) da (1) ted 28.10.2013 and will accordingly proceed to sell the property of the petition er as specified in the column mentioned above. (2) of the property for making adjustment of outstanding dues of the petitioner. The Bank shall also ensure that maximum market price is fetched by sale (3) On completion of the sale, the Respondent-Bank shall ensure settlement o f the petitioner’s case in letter and spirit and while so doing shall keep in vi ew the guidelines contained in One-Time Settlement Scheme. Let this exercise be completed within a period of 6(six) months from the date of the order and accordingly, final decision be taken. With the aforesaid directions, petition stands finally disposed of. In the light of the aforesaid, the interim order passed by this court earlier st ands recalled. No costs.