Prem Nath Nanda v. The Punjab & Sind Bank
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. K. S. Rekhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. I. P. Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has challenged the initiation of proceedings under Section 13 (2)…
Judgment
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present : Mr. K. S. Rekhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. I. P. Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has challenged the initiation of proceedings under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. On November 03, 2008, following order was passed by this Court : “ This petition has been filed against notice under Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 dated 02.04.2008 (Annexure P-2). CWP NO. 18747 OF 2008 -2- Counsel for the petitioner says that his property is being put to sale today. He is willing to pay the amount, which is about Rs.10 lacs and in these circumstances, sale of property of the petitioner will not be fair. Counsel for the petitioner gives an undertaking that the entire amount will be paid within nine months with interest or any other dues of the respondent.
It is further stated that draft of Rs.2 lacs is ready with him, which will be deposited with the respondent within one week from today. Notice of motion for 06.03.2009. In the meanwhile, auction in respect of property of the petitioner shall not be finalised, subject to the petitioner complying with the undertaking.” Learned counsel for the respondent has filed the reply- affidavit which is taken on record. He also points out that petitioner has paid two installments of Rs.2 lacs each i.e total Rs.4 lacs. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to pay some more amount to the respondent-bank in this very month i.e 31st March, 2009. He reiterates that the entire loan amount shall be paid by the petitioner before 31.08.2009. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioner paying the entire loan CWP NO. 18747 OF 2008 -3- amount before 31.08.2009, no action under Section 13 (2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 shall be taken.
In view of the above-stated directions, the respondent-bank shall be at liberty either to cancel the auction already held or if the auction purchaser so agrees, to keep the same in abeyance till 31.08.2009. Disposed of. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. MARCH 06, 2009 shalini (SURYA KANT) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
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?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 06 Mar 2009. The bench was SURYA KANT.
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.