Patna High Court - Orders
Archana Devi @ Archana Kumari vs The Chairman, State Bank Of India & Ors on 3 March, 2016
Author: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Bench: Ahsanuddin Amanullah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3872 of 2016
======================================================
Archana Devi @ Archana Kumari wife of Late Kumud Kumar Singh,
resident of Village Bihat, Tola Gurdaspur, P.S. Barauni, District Begusarai.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Chairman, State Bank of India, State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama
Road, Mumbai- 400021.
2. The A.G.M., Stress Asset's Recovery Branch, State Bank of India, 2nd
Floor, State Bank Main Branch, Opposite Gandhi Maidan, Patna.
3. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Barauni Refinery Townships
(BRT) Branch, P.S. Begusarai, District Begusarai.
4. M/S Kisan Diesel Electrical through its proprietor Om Prakash Kumar,
N.H.- 31, Opposite Gyan Bharti School, Begusarai.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN
AMANULLAH
ORAL ORDER
3 03-03-2016Learned counsel for the parties are present.
The petitioner has moved the Court for a direction to the respondent-State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank') to realize the outstanding loan amount given to the respondent no. 4 from the mortgaged assets of the borrower at the first instance before invoking action against the petitioner, who is only a guarantor.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she is a widow lady and her assets were mortgaged to the Patna High Court CWJC No.3872 of 2016 (3) dt.03-03-2016 2/3 respondent-Bank as a guarantor for the loan taken by the respondent no. 4 and despite the shop running in good condition and located in front of the branch of the Bank from which the loan was taken, the petitioner has been moved again for such recovery. It is submitted that earlier also to save the account from becoming N.P.A., the petitioner had deposited Rs. 1.15 lakhs, which seems to have emboldened the respondent no. 5, who now wants that the property of the petitioner be put on auction sale to satisfy the loan taken by respondent no. 4 to which the Bank has also become a willing party, as no visible action has been taken against it like sealing of the shop or putting it on auction. It is submitted that the respondent no. 4 has another shop in the same district and both the shops are running in good condition and they are not discharging their liability to the Bank and the petitioner is being harassed. Learned counsel further submits that though the Bank may, strictly in law, have the power to move both against the borrower and the guarantor but the facts have to justify such action of moving against the guarantor without resorting to action against the borrower for the reason that besides the petitioner being a widow lady and having no other property except the residential premises which has been proceeded against, and further that she without having any liability had initially also deposited Rs. 1.15 lakhs against the dues of the borrower. It is submitted that the assets of the respondent no. Patna High Court CWJC No.3872 of 2016 (3) dt.03-03-2016 3/3
4 are enough to satisfy the loan without there being need of the petitioner's property having to be put on sale. .
Learned counsel for the Bank prays for time to file counter affidavit.
In view of the aforesaid, as prayed for, by learned counsel for the Bank, the matter be listed after two weeks among the top five cases.
Till then, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for recovery of the loan outstanding against the respondent no. 4.
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) Anand Kr.
U