Rudra Prasanna Acharya v. UCO Bank & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Respondents however have stated in their counter affidavit that for the default in making payment of the loan amount of Rs. 7.00 lakh sanctioned in the name of the petitioner and one Smt. Sangita Acharya and after declaration of the assets as non- performing…
Judgment
--- CORAM: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Bank: Mr. Rajan Raj, Advocate --- 06/ 18.02.2013 Heard counsel for the parties.
The notice of possession dated 27th December 2010 issued under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is under challenge in this writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that he has received instruction that the petitioner has deposited certain amounts of late with the bank.
Operative part
Respondents however have stated in their counter affidavit that for the default in making payment of the loan amount of Rs. 7.00 lakh sanctioned in the name of the petitioner and one Smt. Sangita Acharya and after declaration of the assets as non- performing, a notice under section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 was issued on 16th November 2006 and possession was also taken on 27th December 2010. Against such action, counsel for the petitioner submits that there is remedy of appeal under section 17 of the Act of 2002. In that view of the matter, this court is not inclined to interfere in the writ jurisdiction against the impugned possession notice. However, it will be open to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal if available under the law. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. Ranjeet/ (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Jharkhand High Court, on 27 Dec 2010. The bench was APARESH KUMAR SINGH.
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.