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
13 paragraphs · 425 wordsPankaj Purohit, J
Petitioner was a guarantor to the loan issued to his parents to the tune of Rs.12,84,000/- from the respondent No.2-Bank on 05.12.2022. Due to default in making the payment of installments, account of petitioner has been rendered NPA, and thereafter, respondent No.2- Bank has proceeded with the recovery of amount from the petitioner under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and proceeding under Section 13(4) of the Act has been initiated.
Petitioner came before this Court for the following reliefs:-
i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned demand notice dated 04.08.2025 and the subsequent possession notice dated 17.03.2026 issued by respondent No.2 (contained as Annexure No.3 to this writ petition).
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to provided easy installments to the petitioner in pursuance to the outstanding of Rs.11,72,235.54/- shown against the loan account bearing A/c No.10201200000596.
Instruction was called from the respondent-Bank by this Court on the last date.
Today, Branch Manager-Mr. Arvind Kumar Mishra, is present along with his advocate Mr. Anchit Khokher and submitted that total outstanding amount against the petitioner as on 30.04.2026 is Rs.12,44,772/- and it has also been said by Branch Manager that if the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the loan account, the same would come out of the NPA account and the installments of Rs. 15,886/- per month would be due against the petitioner regularly.
Petitioner-Neeraj Kumar Prajapati, who is present before this Court, has not accepted the said proposal offered by Bank.
In such view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.
At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner made a prayer to permit him to withdraw the present writ petition, so that he can avail the remedy available to him under the Law.
The said prayer made by learned counsel for petitioner is granted.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Petitioner may make application under the provisions of Act before the DRT concerned within 15 days from today. Only for a period of 15 days, no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner. In case of failure of filing the said application by the petitioner, respondent-Bank is free to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner in accordance of law.
Pending application stands disposed of.
