CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2020) 03 P&H CK 0093

Saubhagya Traders And Another vs Canara Bank And Another

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 30 March 2020

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ajay Tewari, J · Harnaresh Singh Gill, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 7275 Of 2020 (O&M)

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

17 paragraphs · 349 words

Ajay Tewari, J

1.

This petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondent-Canara Bank from acting upon notices dated 18.02.2020 and 25. 02.2020 issued

to the petitioners and for quashing the auction pursuant thereto.

2.

The facts are that the petitioner No.1 which is the sole proprietorship concern of the petitioner No.2 had obtained a Cash Credit Limit of Rs.32

Lakh and Term Loan of Rs.3 Lakh in the year 2016 from the respondent bank and in lieu thereof had inter-alia mortgaged residential house of the

petitioner No.2. However, by the impugned notices the bank has recalled the loan and sought to auction the said property.

3.

We find from the record that from 01.01.2019 till today the petitioners had deposited only a sum of Rs.1,53,000/- towards servicing of that Cash

Credit Limit and Term Loan. We put it to the learned counsel as to why the petitioners did not make any deposit beyond this amount and he has

argued that this was because the respondent-bank had suddenly started charging excessive interest. Even though this explanation hardly cuts any ice

yet we asked the learned counsel that in case the petitioners deposit a sum of Rs.7 Lakh within one or two days, the Court could consider granting

some relief and the learned counsel sought time to talk to his client. After 5 minutes the matter was taken up again but the learned counsel stated that

the petitioners would be able to pay only a sum of Rs.2 Lakh by tomorrow and would deposit a further sum of Rs.5 Lakh within three weeks.

4.

In our opinion, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. The conduct of the petitioners reveals that they are just seeking time and are not serious

about making the due payments to the respondent-bank. Even though there is a dispute regarding interest nothing was stopping the petitioners from

depositing money at what, as per them was the interest rate.

5.

Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

6.

Since the main case has been decided, the pending C.M. Application, if any, also stands disposed of.