CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2022) 07 OHC CK 0140

Deepak Kumar Jena vs Authorised Officer & Chief Manager, State Bank Of India

Orissa High Court · Decided on 22 July 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jaswant Singh, J · M.S. Raman, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 21104 Of 2013
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 386 words
1.

This matter is taken up by virtual/physical mode.

2.

The Petitioner, a defaulting borrower, who had availed a house building loan of Rs.4,22,000/- in the year 2008 from the State Bank of India, Kaipada Branch in the district of Jajpur. Due to default in repayment of E.M.I., the loan account was classified as  NPA pursuant to which a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 26th January, 2013, recalling an amount of Rs.4,89,219/- +interest as on 26th January, 2013. Symbolic possession of the secured asset was assumed vide notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 issued on 23rd April, 2013. Such possession notice was also published in the newspaper ‘The Samaj’ on 14th   August, 2013. The Petitioner s challenged the said possession notice in the writ petition.

3.

This Court vide order dated 16th September, 2013 directed the Petitioner  to  deposit Rs.60,000/-  in  two equal  monthly installments and in such event of deposit, the Bank was directed not to take any coercive measure pursuant to aforesaid possession notice dated 23rd April, 2013.

4.

Further amount of Rs.1.00 lakhs was directed to be deposited in two equal monthly installments vide order dated 27th November, 2013. Thereafter the matter was being placed to before the Permanent and Continuous Lok Adalat on 22nd November, 2021, 6th December, 2021, 24th December, 2021, 20th January, 2022, 27th January, 2022, 3rd February, 2022, 14th February, 2022, 25th February, 2022, 10th March, 2022, 25th March, 2022, 7th April, 2022, 21st April, 2022 and 5th May, 2022. Since neither of the Parties cooperated, the matter has been referred to this Court.

5.

When the matter is taken up today, counsel for the Bank submitted that the interim orders passed by this Court have been complied with by the Petitioner, the loanee.

6.

Mr. Dayanidhi Mohanty, counsel for the Petitioner submitted a memo dated 22nd July, 2022, which is taken on record. Said memo reflect as under:-

“Since this is an old matter, no instruction has been received by the Petitioner so far, the case may be permitted withdrawn being not pressed.”

` 7. In view of the Memo filed by the counsel for the Petitioner, the writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn as prayed for. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed as withdrawn.

…………………………