Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15346 of 2011 Vijay Kumar Jaiswal S/O Ram Lakhan Jaiswal R/O Village + Mohalla- Kateya Bazar, P.S.- Kateya, District – Gopalganj. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Bank of India through its General Manager. 2. The General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna. 3. The Branch Manager, S.B.I. Kateya, P.S. Kateya, District- Gopalganj. ….Respondents. ---------------- For the petitioner : Mrs. D.N. Yadav & Saroj Kumar, Advocates. For the SBI : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. --------------- 02/ 02.01.2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction to the respondent Bank to excuse the interest of loan amount granted in favour of petitioner’s agency to run dealership of L.P.G. at Kateya (Gopalganj) but the petitioner was cheated by the Shree Shakti Petroleum & Gas Pvt. Ltd. and Indu Verma L.P.G. Bottling Pvt. Ltd. for which an F.I.R. bearing Kateya P.S.Case No.79/11 dated 12.4.11 has been lodged under [STATUTE] stigation is going on. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ order direction to the respondent Bank to frame a scheme to repay the loan amount in instalments so that the credit of the petitioner with Bank may not disbelieve and petitioner may run his business to earn and make payment of the loan amount. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ order, direction to restrain the respondents from taking any coercive step against petitioner for realization of loan amount under the facts stated hereinafter and to allow the - 2 - petitioner to operate his saving account. (iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order direction granting any other relief or reliefs for which petitioner is found entitled. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the account of the petitioner has been declared non-performing assets and a proceeding under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) has been initiated in which notice under Section 13(2) of the Act has been issued to the sureties. He further submits that the petitioner has apprehension that without proceeding in accordance with law the authorities concerned will take coercive action against the petitioner. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file an objection under Section 13 (3-A) of the Act to the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act. If such an objection is filed by the petitioner within fifteen days from today along with a copy of this order, the authorities shall consider the same in accordance with law and shall decide it by a speaking order expeditiously. 5. Till the said order is passed and a notice under Section 13(4) of the Act is issued no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. Sunil ( S. N. Hussain, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 410

Statute Text:
Section 410 of the Indian Penal Code. None. Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as "stolen property", whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without India. But, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property.