HARBHAJAN SINGH NAGPAL Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by Harbhajan Singh Nagpal, challenging the notice dtd. 2/6/2020 issued to him under Sec. 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, for short, SARFAESI Act, (Annexure P-11) and also praying for quashment of action initiated by the respondents under Sec. 13(4) of SARFAESI Act and the order passed by the District Magistrate, Shimla dtd. 5/3/2021 (Annnexure P-15) under Sec. 14 of the SARFAESI Act intended to take possession of the property of the petitioner included in Schedule "C' appended to the notice to borrower dtd. 2/6/2020 (Annexure P-11).

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that he entered as a guarantor for respondents No.4 to 6 with regard to pre-existing loan availed by them. Respondent No.4 is a partnership firm in which respondents No.5 and 6 are its partners. Respondents No.4 to 6 were granted loan facility by respondent No.3-State Bank of India branch at Bank Square, Sector-01, Parwanoo. Respondents No.5 and 6 are real uncles of the petitioner. In the year 2008, respondents No.5 to 6, who were having good relations with petitioner being brothers of petitioner's father, approached the petitioner to extend guarantee in the loan availed by respondents No.4 to 6 from respondent No.3. Since part of the property, already mortgaged in the per-existing loan with the bank, had fallen to the share of petitioner's father under family settlement and also on account of good relations, the petitioner on above consideration entered as guarantor in the loan availed by respondents No.5 to 6. He did so considering that there was lien in favour of the bank, the property could not be transferred in the name of petitioner's father on this count. The relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.5 were normal and there was no outright compulsion to get mortgaged property transferred in the name of father of the petitioner who had mortgaged his personal property as third party collateral security.

(3.) It is further contended that when the respondents were taking steps to take possession of the entire property, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No.4979 of 2021. The Court was informed of the fact that as per the loan account, the amount of Rs.1,03,16,564.34 stand due. The petitioner offered to deposit the entire amount with the Registry of this Court by way of cheque within two days. The statement of the petitioner was taken on record. Registry was directed to accept the payment through crossed cheque payable in favour of the Registrar General, H.P. High Court. This Court also directed that the deposit so made shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition or any further orders that may be passed by this Court. A limited prayer was made by the petitioner in that case to direct the respondent-Bank to furnish bank account so as to facilitate the settlement of their account. This Court, therefore, directed the representatives of both the parties to sit together and reconcile the account. The Corporate Centre of respondent-bank GIDC Department, Belapur, Maharashtra was directed to provide access to the respondent-Bank for obtaining statement of accounts for the year 2008 pertaining to the petitioner within two days. The aforesaid writ petition was decided by this Court on 18/11/2021 with the observations that enough indulgence has been shown to the petitioner and appropriate directions in this regard issued to the respondents to produce the documents, however, the petitioner did not appear to be satisfied even after the documents have been supplied to him. In such circumstances, the remedy of the petitioner lies elsewhere. However, liberty was reserved to the petitioner to avail the remedy as available to him.