HC Patna -judgement on Notices under 13 (2) and 13 (4)

... appears that the notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI
Act have not been sent at the correct address of the petitioner and
they thus support the stand of the petitioner that he never received
any notice with respect to the loan in question.

 It is pointed outthat the petitioner is a guarantor of the loan and not even the
principal debtor and thus there was no occasion for him to know
about the SARFAESI proceedings. 

It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner
that with respect to the same property other Banks, namely,
Punjab National Bank and State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, have
given loan

Patna High Court - Orders

Anant Kumar Jain vs The Branch Manager The Central ... on 29 January, 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.192 of 2013 ====================================================== Anant Kumar Jain

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India & Ors .... .... Respondent/s

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : M/S N.K.Agarwal, Sr.Advocate with P.C.Agrawal, Advocate

For the Respondent Bank : Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent No.4 : Mrs. Renuka Sharma, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA

ORAL ORDER

5 29-01-2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from the perusal of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank and the documents including postal documents annexed therein it appears that the notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act have not been sent at the correct address of the petitioner and they thus support the stand of the petitioner that he never received any notice with respect to the loan in question. It is pointed out that the petitioner is a guarantor of the loan and not even the principal debtor and thus there was no occasion for him to know about the SARFAESI proceedings.

It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that with respect to the same property other Banks, namely, Punjab National Bank and State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, have given loan for which also SARFAESI proceedings have now been Patna High Court CWJC No.192 of 2013 (5) dt.29-01-2013 2 initiated for about Rs.5 lacs and Rs.21 lacs respectively by the two Banks. It is also submitted that the petitioner is willing to clear the entire dues not only of the respondent Central Bank of India amounting to Rs.12,39,000/- plus future interest and charges but of the other Banks also. It is thus submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner would not have come forward to clear all the three dues amounting to more than Rs.40 lacs unless the value of the property in question was more than the said amount, whereas the respondent Bank has sold the same to respondent No.4 for a sum at Rs.12.96 lacs only which can never be the proper valuation of the property in question. It is also submitted by learned counsel that the petitioner is prepared to compensate the purchaser as may be directed by this Court.

To show his bona fides learned counsel for the petitioner produces in Court a Bank Draft No. 148077 dated 18.1.2013 drawn on the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Patna for Rs.5 lacs in favour of Central Bank of India.

Learned counsel for the Central Bank of India submits that he will have to seek instructions from the Bank before accepting the Bank Draft.

The Bank Draft is, accordingly, returned to learned counsel for the petitioner to be produced on the next date. Patna High Court CWJC No.192 of 2013 (5) dt.29-01-2013 3 Learned counsel also submits that he would be filing separate writ petitions with respect to the SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the Punjab National Bank and the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur so that the three writ petitions may be heard together and disposed of by a common order fixing the time within which the payment should be made.

Learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the sale has already been completed and possession handed over to the auction purchaser.

Learned counsel for the auction purchaser submits that the auction purchaser has valuable rights in the matter as he has taken loan to purchase the property and he should not be disturbed. Put up the matter on 11th February, 2013. Until further orders, status quo with respect to the property in question shall be maintained by the respondents. (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)