Union
Bank of India & ANR Vs. Panchanan Subudhi [2009] INSC 456 (2 March 2009)
Judgement
CIVIL
APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.1355 OF 2009 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C)
No.5906 of 2008) Union Bank of India & Anr. ...Appellant(s) Versus
Panchanan Subudhi ...Respondent(s) O R D E R Leave granted.
Heard
learned counsel for the parties.
By the
impugned order, the High Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the
respondent herein by directing them to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakhs in installments
for liquidating the dues of the appellant bank.
A perusal
of the record shows that the appellant-bank extended financial facility to the
respondent to an extent of Rs.10 lakhs. The respondent deposited the title
deeds of land and building as security. On 31.12.2000, the account of the
respondent was declared as non-performing asset and O.A. No.70 of 2002 was
filed before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Cuttack (for short, `the Tribunal').
During the pendency of the O.A., the appellant-bank issued notice dated
3.9.2004 under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short `the
Act'). This was followed by notice dated -2- 4.12.2004 issued under Section
13(4) of the Act. By an order dated 30.5.2005, the Tribunal passed decree in
favour of the appellant for a sum of Rs.16,10,957/- along with pendent elite
and future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application.
The
respondent challenged the proceedings initiated under the Act in Writ Petition
No.7435 of 2005. The High Court stayed the proceeding subject to the respondent
depositing a sum of Rs.10 lakhs, which the latter never deposited. In the
interregnum, the respondent approached the bank for one time settlement. The
bank agreed for settlement, but the respondent failed to abide by the
conditions of settlement. Consequently, bank issued notice dated 12.2.2007 for
possession of the secured assets. The respondent challenged the said action in W.P.
No.2322 of 2007, which has been disposed of by the High Court in the manner
indicated hereinabove.
In our
view, the approach adopted by the High Court was clearly erroneous. When the
respondent failed to abide by the terms of one time settlement, there was no
justification for the High Court to entertain the writ petition and that too by
ignoring the fact that a statutory alternative remedy was available to the
respondent under Section 17 of the Act.
Accordingly,
the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and writ petition
filed by the respondent before the High Court is dismissed.
...................J. (B.N. Agrawal)
...................J.
Back
Pages: 1 2 3
