Patna High Court - Orders
Arnika Kumari vs The State Bank Of India on 15 July, 2019
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12514 of 2019
======================================================
Arnika Kumari Wife of Sharvan Kumar, Resident of Mohalla- Uttari Sangat
Near Block, Phulwari Sharif, P.S. Phulwari Sharif, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Bank of India through its Chief General Manager, State Bank of
India, Retail Assets General Processing Centre (RACPC) Ist Floor, Patna
Main Branch Building, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna- 800001
2. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Retail Assets General
Processing Centre (RACPC) Ist Floor, Patna Main Branch Building, West
Gandhi Maidan, Patna- 800001
3. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Phulwarisharif, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vijay Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
2 15-07-2019Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Bank.
The petitioner in the present case is aggrieved by the repossession of his vehicle bearing Reg.No.BR01PJ-7755.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case the bank has repossessed the hypothecated vehicle through its recovery agent without following the procedures established by law under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2002'). It is submitted that only seven days notice was given to the petitioner which is not in consonance with Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 which Patna High Court CWJC No.12514 of 2019(2) dt.15-07-2019 2/2 provides for sixty days notice before taking any possession action. It is also submitted that repossession of the vehicle through recovery agent is also not permissible in view of the several judicial pronouncements.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to regularize the account immediately by paying all outstanding EMIs.
Learned counsel for the bank pays for and is granted two weeks time to file a counter affidavit.
In the meantime, if the petitioner pays the total outstanding EMIs and submits an application with the bank with a request to regularize his loan account, the same will be considered by the bank in terms of its recovery policy. On deposit of the outstanding EMIs, however, the vehicle in question shall be provisionally released.
List this matter on 30th July, 2019 under the same heading.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) arvind/-
U