Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Haripada Das vs United Bank Of India And Anr on 1 November, 2019

Author: Suman Shyam

Bench: Suman Shyam

                                                                              Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010263282019




                           THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : WP(C) 7981/2019

           1:HARIPADA DAS
           SON OF LATE GIRENDRA KUMAR DAS, VILLAGE- PAMGAON, P.O.
           JURAPHUKHURI, P.S.- LANKA, DISTRICT- HOJAI.

           VERSUS

           1:UNITED BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.
           HALADHAR BHUYAN MARKET, NATUN BAZAR, NAGAON- 782001, ASSAM.


           2:THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER
            UNITED BANK OF INDIA
            HALADHAR BHUYAN MARKET
            NATUN BAZAR
            NAGAON- 782001
           ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K K S ROY
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, UBI


                                  BEFORE
                     HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

                                         ORDER

Date : 01-11-2019 Heard Mr. K.K.S. Roy, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. S. Chamaria, learned standing counsel, UBI.

This writ petition is directed against the action of the Bank initiated under Section Page No.# 2/2 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act by taking over symbolic possession of the property belonging to the petitioner so as secure the amount due against the NPA account.

Mr. Roy submits that although the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Guwahati, yet, since the office of the Presiding Officer is presently lying vacant, hence, the DRT is not functional. As a result of the same, his client is in serious risk of losing the property. Stating that the petitioner is ready and willing to repay the genuine amount due and payable to the Bank, Mr. Roy submits that there are serious discrepancies in the statement of account furnished by the Bank.

Mr. Chamaria, on the other hand, submits that the Presiding Officer of the DRT would join on 04-11-2019 and nothing will happen in the meantime. Since there is no steps taken by the Bank for auctioning the property, the learned counsel for the Bank has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, I am inclined to post this matter again on 08-11-2019 so as to enable both sides counsel to obtain further instruction.

Status quo be maintained till the next date.

List on 08-11-2019.

JUDGE GS Comparing Assistant