CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Neema Devi vs Uttarakhand State Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Haldwani And Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 23 February 2022 · Citation: (2022) 02 UK CK 0115

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Securitization And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Section 17
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 246 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

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

10 paragraphs · 321 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

According to the petitioner, she stood as a guarantor in respect of a loan taken by Deepak Singh Daramwal and Gopal Singh from Uttarakhand Co-operative Bank Limited, Branch Haldwani, District Nainital. As a default was committed by the borrowers in repayment of the loan, therefore, respondent-Bank has taken steps for recovery of the amount by invoking provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002.

2.

In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged, auction notice issued on 13.01.2022 indicating the date of auction-sale of secured asset as 28.01.2022. It is a fact that respondent-Bank could not receive any offer pursuant to the e-auction notice.

3.

Ms. Seema Shah, Advocate appearing for the respondent-Bank submits that Bank will issue fresh e-auction notice for sale of the secured assets.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not the borrower, but simply a guarantor, therefore, the outstanding loan amount be first recovered from the borrowers and the petitioner can be proceeded against only when loan is not recovered from the borrowers.

5.

This submission made learned counsel for the petitioner is unacceptable because liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the borrower.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that on account of vacancy in Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, petitioner is unable to seek remedy under Section 17 of SARFAESI Actr, 2002. He further submits that petitioner be permitted to approach the Competent Authority in the Bank by making representation.

7.

Ms. Seema Shah, Advocate for the Bank submits that if petitioner makes a representation, the same shall be considered sympathetically.

8.

Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the Competent Authority in the Bank. If such representation is made within one week from today, decision thereupon shall be taken within two weeks thereafter.

9.

Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the parties today itself.