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 0, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ram Gupta vs Icici Bank Limited And Another on 8 October, 2018

Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, Avneesh Jhingan

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                                            CWP No. 11545 of 2018
                                                            Decided on : 08.10.2018

Ram Gupta
                                                                    . . . Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus
ICICI Bank Limited and another
                                                                 . . . Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

PRESENT: Mr. Aalok Jagga, Advocate and
         Mr. Karanyog Singh Riar, Advocate
         for the petitioner(s).

            Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate and
            Ms. Kriti Sharma, Advocate
            for respondent No.1 - ICICI Bank Ltd.
                                     ****


AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing of notice dated 30.05.2011 (Annexure P-6) and possession notice dated 23.03.2018 (Annexure P-12) issued by respondent No.1, under Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'the Act'). Further, a writ of Mandamus has been sought for directing respondent No.1 to charge interest as applicable in the case of home loan, which has been sanctioned to the petitioner, instead of commercial interest as well as direction qua respondent No.2 has also been sought for initiating appropriate action against respondent No.1 for fleecing a consumer by deliberately and intentionally charging commercial rate of interest, inspite of the fact that documents of respondent No.1 itself show that it is a home loan.

2. After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 13-10-2018 23:04:47 ::: CWP No. 11545 of 2018 -2- petitioner either to approach the respondent-Bank or take recourse to the alternative remedies as may be available to him, in accordance with law.

3. Dismissed as withdrawn. It shall, however, be open to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedies as may be available to him, in accordance with law.



                                                  (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
                                                         JUDGE

                                                    (AVNEESH JHINGAN)
October 08, 2018                                          JUDGE
J.Ram

Whether speaking/reasoned:   Yes/No
Whether Reportable:          Yes/No




                                      2 of 2
                   ::: Downloaded on - 13-10-2018 23:04:47 :::