High CourtsSingle Bench(2019) 12 P&H CK 0303

Mohan Lal Sharma vs State Bank Of India And Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 26 December 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Bajaj, Alka Sarin, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 37660 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

6 paragraphs · 392 words
1.

Through the present petition, petitioner has challenged the communication dated 04.12.2019 (Annexure P-4), addressed by the Tehsildar Kapurthala-respondent No. 4 to the Station House Officer, Police Station City, Kapurthala, whereby request for providing police help has been made for taking possession of the mortgaged property, i.e., House No. 459, Sidhu Corner Jalandhar Road, Kapurthala.

2.

It is the case of the petitioner that in June 2010, a loan facility of Rs. 42,00,000/- was obtained by him and his sons from State Bank of India and the same was to be paid back within a period of 20 years by way of monthly instalments of Rs. 40,535/-. It is pleaded that on account of various reasons, including illness of his wife, losses in business etc., the borrower(s) could not strictly follow the time schedule of repayment and the loan account was declared as Non Performing Assets in September, 2015. Resultantly, creditor-bank initiated the proceedings under Section 13 of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, SARFAESI Act). Later on, the District Magistrate, Kapurthala facilitated the Bank to take possession of the mortgaged property and passed the order on 15.01.2016 under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued in support of grounds raised in the petition and prays for intervention of this Court for challenging the order dated 04.12.2019.

4.

During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 15.01.2016 passed by the District Magistrate (respondent No. 3) under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was never challenged. He states that still a sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- is due to be paid by the borrower(s) to the creditor bank.

5.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the impugned order is only a request made pursuant to the order dated 15.01.2016 and, therefore, is not an order under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act. This communication is sent to the concerned police station for providing police help to implement the order dated 15.01.2016. The said order is neither on record nor any challenge has been made to it and, therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere as the petition lacks necessary and relevant particulars.

6.

Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.