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 1]

Patna High Court - Orders

Sanjeev Kumar Sada vs Authorised Officer / Chief Manager, ... on 5 July, 2016

Author: Jyoti Saran

Bench: Jyoti Saran

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10716 of 2016
                 ======================================================
                 Sanjeev Kumar Sada, son of late Chandra Narayan Sada, resident of village-
                 Chharapatti, P.S. Raniganj, District Araria
                                                                       .... .... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                    1. Authorised officer / Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Bistoria
                         P.S.Raniganj, District Araria
                    2. Branch Manager, Bistoria Branch, P.O. Meriganj, District Araria
                                                                      .... .... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :    Mr. Amod Kumar Singh, Adv.
                 For the Respondent/s       : Mr. Nishi Nath Ojha, Adv.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
                 ORAL ORDER

2   05-07-2016

The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') impugned at Annexure-1 to the writ petition and is dated 8.12.2015 raising a demand of Rs. 9,39,126/- stated to be the balance outstanding against the petitioner and one other on a loan of Rs. 5 lacs calculated at the rate of 12% per annum.

Although a reference has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner to a representation placed at Annexure-2 to submit that an offer was made by the petitioner for settlement of the dues but Mr. Manish Kishore learned counsel for the Bank on oral instructions informs that the said representation has never been filed with the Bank nor there is any receiving endorsed thereon. Patna High Court CWJC No.10716 of 2016 (2) dt.05-07-2016 2/2

He however, does not object to the offer of the petitioner for settlement of the dues.

In the circumstances, I deem it fit and proper to dispose of the writ petition with the liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents/Branch Manager with offer for repayment of the outstanding mentioned in Annexure-1 and for settlement of the account and which shall be considered and disposed of by the respondents in accordance with law. The respondents would consider its repayment in reasonable instalments.

The writ petition is disposed of.

(Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/-

U