Punjab-Haryana High Court
Saroj Verma vs Presiding Officer on 25 September, 2013
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.21345 of 2013 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 25.09.2013
Saroj Verma
.....Petitioner
versus
Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr.Saurabh Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner
..
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE: (Oral) The petitioner defaulted in repaying the loan which resulted in securitization proceedings being initiated in view of the loan being secured by an immovable property. In the DRT proceedings, on 5.3.2010, it was noticed that the main dispute is arising from a claim of the petitioner that loan availed of was only of `6 lakhs and not `13.25 lakhs and that signatures of the petitioner had been obtained on blank documents for which an FIR had been lodged. The DRT, though not finding any prima facie material in support of the contentions sought to be advanced, "in the larger interest of justice" gave an opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the sum of `1 lakh within a week from the date of order i.e. by 13.3.2009 and subject to that further action qua the property was stayed.
The petitioner moved an application thereafter before the DRT stating that she had gone to deposit the amount of `1 lakh on Chand Parkash 2013.09.26 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21345-2013 -2- 13.3.2010 but the Branch Manager refused to accept the same. This plea was negated and the interim order was vacated vide order dated 19.3.2010.
The petitioner assailed this order before this Court by filing CWP-5866-2010 which was decided on 8.9.2010. The order records that when notice was issued in the writ petition, the petitioner had produced a Demand Draft of `1 lakh in favour of respondent No.1-bank and subject to the deposit of that draft, the parties were directed to maintain status- quo. The writ petition was, thus, disposed of on 8.9.2010 with the direction that since the petitioner had unfortunately lost her husband and had no regular source of income, the Securitisation Application (SA) of the petitioner be examined on merits subject to deposit of another sum of Rs.1 lakh within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
As per Annexure P-5, which is the statement of account, on 9.11.2010, the petitioner deposited a sum of `85,000/- i.e. `15,000/- short and a day later. The story now sought to be set up is that petitioner went to bank with one lakh of rupees in cash, but notes of `15,000/- were soiled and the bank refused to accept the same. However, there is nothing on record whatsoever to show that there is any communication or information to the bank to this effect.
Three years hence on 9.7.2013, it was noticed that there has been no compliance of the orders of the High Court dated 8.9.2010 and, thus, the respondent-bank was given liberty to proceed in accordance with law and the SA was listed on 9.9.2013 for further proceedings. On 9.9.2013, again another counsel entered appearance for Chand Parkash 2013.09.26 14:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-21345-2013 -3- the petitioner and sought time to argue the matter and the matter is now listed on 12.12.2013.
The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in effect, seeks to assail the earlier order dated 9.7.2013 by which the interim orders were vacated.
We are unable to comprehend the story sought to be set up before us. If it was so, i.e, when `15,000/- were returned by the bank to the petitioner, nothing prevented the petitioner from getting a pay order or draft prepared thereafter and moving this Court for extension of time to deposit the same explaining reasons as stated before us now. She kept quiet over the issue after depositing `85,000/- and three years have elapsed since then. Nothing more has been deposited by the petitioner. Now when the petitioner is faced with the prospect of security being sold by the bank for realising its dues, this route is sought to be used to claim that bank did not accept the amount.
We are, thus, not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. If the petitioner wants any settlement over this issue, she must approach the respondent-bank for the same.
Dismissed.
( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL )
CHIEF JUSTICE
25.09.2013 (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
parkash* JUDGE
Chand Parkash
2013.09.26 14:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document