High CourtsSingle Bench(2020) 01 CAL CK 0286

Gaurav Sharma vs Union Bank Of India & Ors

Calcutta High Court · Decided on 10 January 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petitions (WP) No. 24166 (W) Of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

21 paragraphs · 377 words

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J

Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept on record.

The present challenge is against a seizure of vehicle, being plied by the petitioner, by the Union Bank of India, being the respondent no. 1 herein.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that although there were some defaults in payment of instalment of loan taken by the petitioner

from the said Bank, and the account of the petitioner with the Bank was marked as NPA account long back, a notice thereof was given to the

petitioner only in the month of May, 2019. It is further submitted that, thereafter, the petitioner has made several payments, taking the repaid amount in

excess over the dues to the Bank. However, despite such payments, the Bank has not returned back the vehicle, rather issued a notice of sale in

respect of the said vehicle.

Such contentions are controverted on behalf of the respondent-Bank.

It is apparent from the submissions of the parties and the materials-on-record that the petitioner was in default of payment of the instalments of loan at

the relevant juncture, when the vehicle was seized, and the Bank was within its jurisdiction to seize such vehicle.

In any event, if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to such seizure of vehicle, the loan having been repaid in full and as regards the issuance

of sale notice, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate authorities with the said grievance.

In view of availability of an equally efficacious alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, there is no occasion for this Court to entertain

this writ petition.

Accordingly, W.P. No. 24166(W) of 2019 is dismissed on contest.

It is made clear that in the event the petitioner pursues his remedy before the appropriate forum, the findings rendered herein would not prevent the

petitioner from agitating his grievance, raised herein, before such forum and the said forum would be free to decide on the same, upon hearing both

sides, without being influenced by the order passed herein in any manner whatsoever.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.