KRISHNA KUMAR SHARMA, SON OF BANWARI LAL SHARMA Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE; SR MANAGER, ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by order dated 09.01.2015 in S. A. No. 16 of 2014, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that, against the possession notice dated 07.01.2014 the petitioner preferred S.A. No. 16 of 2014. The petitioner availed term loan of Rs. 41 Lacs from the respondent Oriental Bank of Commerce and cash credit loan of Rs. 8.5 Lacs from the respondent Oriental Bank of Commerce. The partnership deed dated 13.09.2006 was submitted by the petitioner to the respondent Bank and the term loan of Rs. 41 Lacs was disbursed to the vendors who had installed Plant and Machinery on the land of the petitioner. Consequently, the entire Plant and Machinery costing about Rs. 77.98 Lacs were hypotheticated to the respondentBank. The petitioner also furnished NSC, KVP, ICIC Tax Saving Bond etc. valued at Rs. 5 lacs and the rawmaterials , finished goods etc. were also hypotheticated to the respondentBank. The loan account was however, declared NPA on 31.12.2011. The petitioner has already paid an amount of Rs. 35,31,035/ against the term loan of Rs. 41 Lacs between the period 2007 and 2012. During 201213, the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs. 2,47,227 and the bank has encashed the fixed deposit worth Rs. 7,74,658/. The petitioner has also paid a sum of Rs. 12,76,473/ towards cash credit loan of Rs. 8.5 Lacs. A demand notice dated 08.08.2012 was issued which was duly replied by the petitioner however, without issuing any notice the possession notice dated 07.01.2014 was issued in contravention of the provisions of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. Again, without issuing any notice to the petitioner an advertisement was issued in the newspaper "Hindustan" on 15.08.2014 and in the newspaper "The Times of India" on 17.08.2014 for sale of the secured assets. The petitioner moved the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi in S.A. No. 16 of 2014 and vide order dated 18.09.2014 the proposed sale dated 19.09.2014 was stayed. However, in violation of the interim order dated 18.09.2014, the respondentBank issued sale notice for eauction of the secured assets on 12.01.2015 and accordingly, an application was filed in S.A. No. 16 of 2014. Vide order dated 09.01.2015 the Debts Recovery Tribunal ordered that if the applicant pays an amount of Rs. 15 Lacs prior to sale of security, the bank would not proceed for sale. It was further ordered that the applicant may approach the Tribunal with repayment schedule for balance amount within 4 months thereafter. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) A counteraffidavit has been filed stating that the loan account was declared NPA on 31.12.2011 and a demand notice was issued on 08.08.2012. The respondentBank served possession notice dated 07.01.2014 and vide order dated 18.09.2014 the proposed sale of security assets was stayed. Since the earlier notice was issued due to technical mistake the respondentBank corrected the same and issued a fresh advertisement on 03.12.2014 fixing the date for sale on 12.01.2015, which gives clear 30 days notice to the petitioner. The sale was concluded on 12.01.2015 and 19.01.2015 the Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit the entire dues cost, expenses etc. till the confirmation of sale.