Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Sughar Singh v. Bank Of India And Another - WRIT - C No. 69229 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 21437 (19 December 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon.R.P.Misra, J.

Hon.Shishir Kumar, J.

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri R.C.Singh and Sri Ashok Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the entire proceeding including the sale notice dated 11.11.2006 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition).

The petitioner was provided a cash credit to the tune of Rs.20 lacs but due to financial circumstances, he was not able to operate the account properly.  The respondents bank had issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and subsequently a notice of sale was issued on 11.11.2006 to the effect that the outstanding dues against the petitioner is 21,30,347.00 plus interest with effect from 24.6.2005.  If the said amount is not paid, the property of the petitioner will be auctioned.

Petitioner submits that he is willing and ready to pay the amount and a substantial amount will be paid by the petitioner within a short period and rest of the amount will be paid by the petitioner within a period of three or four months.

Though Sri Ashok Bhatnagar, who has appeared for the Bank has submitted to this effect that as the notice under Section 13(4) for the purposes of possession and auction of the property has already been initiated, therefore, now at this stage, there is no question of payment of the amount in installment.  The counsel for the respondents is not agreeable to the aforesaid condition placed by the petitioner.

As the petitioner has shown his willingness to pay the total amount due to the respondents and he is ready to pay a substantial amount within a period of one month, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case, we are passing the order for installment.

The recovery against the petitioner shall remain stayed provided the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.10 lacs with the respondent No.2 i.e. Chief Manager/Authorized Officer, Bank of India, Kanpur Main Branch, L.I.C. Building, The Mall, District Kanpur within a period of one month and the balance amount will be paid by the petitioner in two equal bimonthly installments.  In case the petitioner complies the first condition of the order i.e. deposit of Rs.10 lacs then the property of the petitioner shall not be auctioned.  In case of default of any condition, mentioned above, the writ petition stands dismissed.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to  costs.





Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.