The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 595 of 2024 ---- 1. Shrayansh Jyoti. 2. Binay Kumar Sinha. Versus ....Petitioners 1. 2. 3. The Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank), Harmu Colony Branch, B-1, Near Harmu Chowk, Harmu Colony, P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora, District- Ranchi through Branch Manager. The Branch Manager, Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank), Harmu Colony, Branch, B-1, Near Harmu Chowk, Harmu Colony, P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi. Zonal Manager, Indian Bank, Zonal Office at 4th Floor, SPG Mart, Bahu Bazar, Ranchi, P.O. Bahu Bazar, P.S. Lower Bazar, District- Ranchi. 4. Recovery Officer/Authorized Officer, Indian Bank ((Allahabad Bank), Harmu Colony, Branch, B-1, Near Harmu Chowk, Harmu Colony, P.O. Harmu, P.S. Argora, District-Ranchi .....Respondents ---- ---------- Coram: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioners For Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 ----- 02/6.2.2024
Legal Reasoning
this Court in W.P.C. No. 3987 of 2022, the said demand notice was recalled but subsequently the respondent-Indian Bank has once again issued a notice wherein they are intending to sale the mortgaged property, which is the Flat of the petitioners. 4. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 has submitted that the petitioner no. 1 has a remedy of appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and he has already availed of the remedy and -2- therefore he cannot be permitted to press the applications before the Debt Recovery Tribunal as well as before this Court which can be construed to be of the petitioner engaged in forum hunting. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner did not show any intent to deposit the installments as well as the interest and therefore the petitioners cannot be granted the prayer which has been sought for in this writ application. 5. The factual aspects reveal that the petitioner no. 1 had applied for an educational loan, which was sanctioned on 30.8.2017 amounting to Rs.36,00,000/- against which the petitioner no. 2 had mortgaged his Flat being Flat No. 3B, 3rd floor, Alakh Enclave, Argora, Ranchi. The petitioner no. 1 after the sanction of educational loan had gone to University of Manchester, United Kingdom and thereafter the petitioner no. 1 had joined Wharton University, U.S.A. and Columbia University, New Yark, U.S.A. and he had successfully completed the courses, which he had applied for. 6. The petitioners had received a notice on 29.4.2022 wherein they had come to know that they were the defaulters with respect to payment of the educational loan and the account of educational loan was kept in NPA category. The petitioners had again received a demand notice dated 19.7.2022 wherein a demand of Rs.49,23,940.00 was made without giving any details after which the petitioner no. 1 had preferred a writ application before this Court in W.P.C. No. 3987 of 2022, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 31.8.2022 with a liberty to the petitioner no. 1 to file an objection to the demand notice dated 19.7.2022. The petitioners had thereafter filed an application being S.A. No. 125 of 2022 against the demand notice before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which is still pending. However, during the pendency of the said application, an E-Auction Sale Notice has been issued by the respondent no. 4 on 2.1.2024, which led the petitioners to prefer an interlocutory application in S.A. No. 125 of 2022 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi with a prayer for stay of E- Auction Sale Notice dated 2.1.2024. 7. The primary grievance of the petitioners in this writ application seems to be with respect to the E-Auction Sale Notice dated 2.1.2024, which is also the subject matter of S.A. No. 125 of 2022, which is said to be pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It also appears that for stay of the E- Auction Sale Notice, the petitioners had also preferred an interlocutory application and as submitted by the learned counsel for the respective -3- parties the next date fixed for hearing on the stay application is 7.2.2024. 8. Mr. Chakraverty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that though S.A. No. 125 of 2022 has been kept pending and during pendency of this application the E-Auction Sale Notice has been issued by the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and even the stay application which has been preferred by the petitioners on one pretext or the other is being adjourned and if the E-Auction Sale Notice is given effect to, the application preferred by the petitioners would become infructuous. 9. At this, Mr. Pati has submitted that there is no bar before the respondent-Bank to proceed and the E-Auction Sale Notice issued by the respondent-Bank is in accordance with law. 10. Be that as it may considering the fact that the petitioners have availed of an alternative remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal by filling an application as well as an interlocutory application for stay of E-Auction Sale Notice dated 2.1.2024, which is slated to be heard tomorrow, I am not inclined to entertain the similar prayer made in this writ application and accordingly this writ application stands disposed of with a direction to the Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi to dispose of the interlocutory application being I.A. No.25 of 2024 arising out of S.A. No. 125 of 2022 tomorrow i.e. 7.2.2024 in accordance with law and on consideration and proper appreciation of the materials available on record as well as the submissions which are to be advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties. 11. This writ application stands disposed of with the aforementioned observations and directions. Rakesh/- (Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J)
Arguments
: Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, Advocate : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate 2. In this writ application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of the Notice of E-Auction Sale dated 2.1.2014 issued by the respondent no. 4 whereby the property of the petitioners which had been mortgaged for securing education loan of Rs.36,00,000/- is kept for E-Auction Sale to be held on 8.2.2024. 3. It has been submitted by Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the petitioner no. 1 had applied for educational loan, which was sanctioned and the petitioner no. 1 had gone for higher studies in United Kingdom as well as in United States of America. It has been submitted that prior to October, 2022 the account of the petitioner No. 1 was declared as NPA. It has been submitted that earlier also, a demand notice was issued and when the petitioner no. 1 had approached