Skip to content


Mrs.ismat Fatmi Vs. State Bank of India - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Mrs.ismat Fatmi

Respondent

State Bank of India

Excerpt:


.....under the provisions of the securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest act, 2002 ( for short “the act”.) dated 08.05.2008, paper publication regarding auction dated 15.06.2008 be quashed. the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the bank is only concerned with the liability and in case the petitioner discharges the same, they would withdraw the impugned notice. it is however, submitted that in case the petitioner fails to discharge her liability within three months, the bank be granted permission to proceed further with the impugned notice dated 08.05.2008 issued by them to the petitioner which has been stayed by this court by order dated 16.07.2008. having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the undertaking furnished by the petitioner, the petition is disposed of in the following terms:- (a) as undertaken by the petitioner, she shall continue to discharge her liability and she shall clear the entire liability within three months from today in instalments which she shall deposit with the bank from time to time. (b) it is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to discharge her liability.....

Judgment:


W.P.No.8386/2008 (MRS.Ismat Fatmi versus State Bank of India and another) 01.10.2012 Shri B.D.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for the respondents/Bank.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner undertakes to clear the entire liability outstanding in her name within three months and also undertakes to make payment to the respondent/Bank in instalments within this period.

It is submitted that in view of the aforesaid undertaking, the impugned notice issued under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( for short “the Act”.) dated 08.05.2008, paper publication regarding auction dated 15.06.2008 be quashed.

The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Bank is only concerned with the liability and in case the petitioner discharges the same, they would withdraw the impugned notice.

It is however, submitted that in case the petitioner fails to discharge her liability within three months, the Bank be granted permission to proceed further with the impugned notice dated 08.05.2008 issued by them to the petitioner which has been stayed by this court by order dated 16.07.2008.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the undertaking furnished by the petitioner, the petition is disposed of in the following terms:- (a) As undertaken by the petitioner, she shall continue to discharge her liability and she shall clear the entire liability within three months from today in instalments which she shall deposit with the Bank from time to time.

(b) It is made clear that in case the petitioner fails to discharge her liability within three months from today, the Bank would be at liberty to proceed further with the Securitisation proceedings initiated against the petitioner by impugned notice dated 08.05.2008.

(c) In case the petitioner discharges her liability within three months, the respondent/Bank shall give No Dues Certificate and shall also withdraw the impugned notice dated 08.05.2008.

With the aforesaid directions based on the undertaking furnished by the petitioner, the petition stands disposed of.

C.C.as per rules.

(R.S.Jha) Judge msp


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //