Uttarakhand High Court
Anil Kuma Goyal vs Punjab National Bank & Others on 11 March, 2015
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh
WPMS No. 576 of 2015 Hon'ble Alok Singh, J.
Mr. Davesh Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.C. Pandey, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Pramod Tiwari, Advocate for respondents no. 1 and
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent no. 3 - M/s Manokamna Steel Pvt. Ltd took loan from respondent no. 1 Bank wherein petitioner stood as guarantor and had also mortgaged his property, as mentioned in column 4 of Annexure 1; Bank has taken possession of the petitioner's property and has invited tenders to sell the same; reserve price fixed for the property of petitioner is Rs. 61,13,000/-. He further contends that petitioner, in order to save his mortgaged property, is ready and willing to deposit Rs. 65,00,000/- with the Bank and whatever outstanding is found after adjusting Rs. 65,000/- that can be recovered in accordance with law. He further submits that petitioner shall deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- with the Bank within a week and shall deposit rest of the amount i.e. Rs. 55,00,000/- within next 70 days.
Issue notice to respondent no. 3 by registered post AD in addition to normal mode of service on steps being taken by the petitioner within a week. Mr. M. C. Pandey, learned Sr. Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2 seeks and is granted three weeks' time to file counter affidavit. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I direct that petitioner shall deposit Rs. 10,00,000/- with the Bank within a week and shall also deposit Rs. 55,00,000/- with the Bank within next 70 days and in the meantime, property of the petitioner, as mentioned in column no. 4 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) shall not be sold. CLMA No. 2457 of 2015 stands disposed of accordingly.
(Alok Singh, J.) 11.03.2015 SKS