Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi and Another Vs. State Bank of India and Another

Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi and Another vs State Bank of India and Another

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Apr 05, 2011

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/917479

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/917479
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: Satya Poot Mehrotra; Rajesh Chandra, JJ.
Decided On: Apr 05, 2011
Case Number: WRIT - C No. - 19757 of 2011
Subject: Securitisation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[R.V. Raveendran; A. K. Patnaik] Indian Penal Code Section 452 - House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint -- After investigation, the police filed two challans on 02.02.2006 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ludhiana. After further investigation, the Superintendent of Pol...

Key legal issue: Securitisation
Acts & sections: Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002; Constitution of India - Article 226

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi and Another

Advocate Gulab Chnadra, Adv

Respondent

State Bank of India and Another

Advocate Smt. Archana Singh, Adv

Legal References

Acts: Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI), 2002; Constitution of India - Article 226

Excerpt

.....section 173 of the cr.p.c. under which the police submits reports after investigation and after further investigation, section 190 of the cr. p.c. under which the magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a police report and section 482 of the cr.p.c. under which the high court exercises its powers to quash the criminal proceedings. report of police officer on completion of investigation. cognizance of offences by magistrate. sub-section (8) of section 173 further provides that where upon further investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall also forward to the magistrate a further report regarding such evidence and the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 173, cr.p.c., shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). thus, the report under sub-section (2) of section 173 after the initial investigation as well as the further report under sub-section (8) of section 173 after further investigation constitute "police report" and have to be forwarded to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. r.p. kapur moved the punjab high court under section 561-a of the code of criminal procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the first information report. .....averments made in the writ petition.4. in united bank of india v. satyavati tandon & others reported in 2010 (8) scc 110, their lordships of the supreme court have laid down that in view of the alternative remedy available under the securitization act, the high court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india should normally not interfere in respect of the proceedings being taken under the said act. 5. shri gulab chandra , learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, states that the petitioners do not want to question the merits of the proceedings being taken under the securitization act and want to pay the entire outstanding dues with interest and expenses on pro-rata basis in case reasonable time is given to them for making the deposit in instalments.6. smt. archana singh, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent-bank has no objection to the above prayer made on behalf of the petitioners provided the petitioners deposit an amount of rs. 1.5 lac by 7.4.2011, and further, deposit the remaining amount in four equal quarterly instalments. 7. in view of the above, we dispose of the writ petition with theconsent of the learned counsel for the parties, without going into the merits of the controversy involved in the writ petition, by giving the following directions:1. the petitioners will clear off the entire outstanding dues along-with interest, penal interest and expenses on pro-rata basis.2. the entire outstanding dues shall be paid in five instalments. the first instalment of rs. 1.5 lacs shall be paid by 7.4.2011, and thereafter, the remaining amount will be paid in four equal quarterly instalments.3. initially the recovery proceedings are stayed till 7.4.2011. on depositing the first instalment, impugned proceeding shall remain stayed up to the date of next instalment and the process shall continue until the last instalment has been paid.4. if the petitioners deposit the entire amount as undertaken.....

Full Judgment

1. The petitioner took loan for construction of house from the respondent no.2-State Bank of India in the year 2002.

2. The petitioner committed default in respect of the said loan Consequently, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short " the Securitisation Act") have been initiated against the petitioners.

3. We have heard Shri Gulab Chandra , learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt Archana Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, and have perused the averments made in the Writ Petition.

4. In United Bank of India v. Satyavati Tandon & others reported in 2010 (8) SCC 110, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down that in view of the alternative remedy available under the Securitization Act, the High Court in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should normally not interfere in respect of the proceedings being taken under the said Act.

5. Shri Gulab Chandra , learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, however, states that the petitioners do not want to question the merits of the proceedings being taken under the Securitization Act and want to pay the entire outstanding dues with interest and expenses on pro-rata basis in case reasonable time is given to them for making the deposit in instalments.

6. Smt. Archana Singh, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent-Bank has no objection to the above prayer made on behalf of the petitioners provided the petitioners deposit an amount of Rs. 1.5 lac by 7.4.2011, and further, deposit the remaining amount in four equal quarterly instalments.

7. In view of the above, we dispose of the Writ Petition with theconsent of the learned counsel for the parties, without going into the merits of the controversy involved in the Writ Petition, by giving the following directions:

1. The petitioners will clear off the entire outstanding dues along-with interest, penal interest and expenses on pro-rata basis.

2. The entire outstanding dues shall be paid in five instalments. The first instalment of Rs. 1.5 lacs shall be paid by 7.4.2011, and thereafter, the remaining amount will be paid in four equal quarterly instalments.

3. Initially the recovery proceedings are stayed till 7.4.2011. On depositing the first instalment, impugned proceeding shall remain stayed up to the date of next instalment and the process shall continue until the last instalment has been paid.

4. If the petitioners deposit the entire amount as undertaken by the petitioners in the manner indicated above, the proceedings shall stand withdrawn.

5. If the petitioners fail to deposit the amount of any one instalment within the stipulated period, the Bank shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

6. The cost and recovery charges, if any, shall be paid alongwith the last instalment. It is made clear that this order has been passed on the statements made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the Bank, and we have not adjudicated the claim on merits.

8. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observations.

9. Copy of this order will be provided to the learned counsel for the parties, on payment of usual charges, within 24 hours.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 2011 Same Parties Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi and Another vs State Bank of India a... Same Subject Securitisation Same Judge Satya Poot Mehrotra; Rajesh Chandra, JJ. Acts & Sections Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enf...

Securitisation