9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: High Court's order directing payment in installments for liquidating bank dues, challenge to proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, one-time settlement failure, High Court's jurisdiction in entertaining writ petition.
Challenge to High Court's Order: The Supreme Court reviewed a case where the High Court directed the respondent to pay &8377; 10 lakhs in installments to settle the dues of the appellant bank. The appellant bank had extended a financial facility to the respondent, who failed to abide by the terms of the one-time settlement. Despite the availability of a statutory alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Act, the High Court entertained the writ petition, which the Supreme Court deemed as erroneous. Securitisation and Reconstruction Act Proceedings: The appellant bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The respondent's account was declared as a non-performing asset, leading to the filing of O.A. No.70 of 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Subsequently, notices were issued under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act. The Tribunal passed a decree in favor of the appellant bank for a specific sum along with interest. The respondent challenged these proceedings in a writ petition, which was stayed by the High Court subject to the respondent depositing &8377; 10 lakhs, a condition that was not fulfilled. Dismissal of Writ Petition: The Supreme Court found the High Court's approach to be erroneous as the respondent had failed to comply with the one-time settlement terms. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and dismissing the writ petition filed by the respondent before the High Court.
|
