M/s Sandeep Rice and General Mills v. The General Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Present:- Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ----- ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved by notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the Act”), proposing to take over the mortgaged property of the petitioner. Normally, we may not entertain a petition against a notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, as the petitioner has a remedy of replying to such notice which can be taken into account before any further action. However, in view of the fact that learned counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner is willing to pay the entire amount within six months from today, if it is allowed to sell the mortgaged property, we consider it proper to entertain this petition. C.W.P. No.19697 of 2008 2 Subject to the petitioner complying with the undertaking of paying the entire dues within six months from today, we direct that the petitioner be allowed to sell the mortgaged property in consultation and association with the Bank, as proposed by the petitioner. It has also been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the buyer will directly deposit the entire amount to the extent of dues of the Bank with the Bank itself. In view of above, this petition will stand disposed of. If the Bank is aggrieved, it will be open for it to move this Court. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE November 19, 2008 ashwani ( L. N. MITTAL ) 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 19 Nov 2008. The bench was ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, L N MITTAL.
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.