AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
15 paragraphs · 234 wordsManoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Petitioners are borrower against whom recovery proceedings have been initiated by invoking provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
By means of this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the sale notice issued under Rule 6(2) & 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement)
Rules, 2002.
Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 submits that the lending bank had filed O.A. No. 44 of 2018 and claim of the
bank was decreed. He further submits that despite the said judgment, petitioners have failed to repay the loan.
Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners are ready and willing to settle the dispute, but they want
opportunity to approach the Competent Authority in the bank.
Having regard to the willingness showing by the petitioner to settle the dispute, they are permitted to approach the Competent Authority in the bank
by making representation on or before 05.1.2022. If petitioners make such representation, the Competent Authority in the bank shall consider
petitioners’ request and take appropriate decision, as per law, within one week thereafter.
Till 12.01.2022 or till decision on petitioners’ representation, whichever is earlier, auction sale of the secured asset of the petitioners, if made,
shall not be confirmed.
Let a certified copy of this order be issued today itself.