Civil Writ Petition No.4533 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4533 of 2009 Date of decision:17.09.2009. Manmohan Aggarwal ...Petitioner Versus Syndicate Bank ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr. Vinay Puri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. I.P.Singh, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL). Petitioner stood guarantor for the loan raised by his son namely Ashish Aggarwal. Immovable property owned by the petitioner was mortgaged as a collateral security, to secure recovery of the loan amount. Son of the petitioner committed default in the repayment of loan amount, which forced the respondent – bank to initiate proceedings under Section 13 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, `the Act'). At that time, petitioner filed this writ petition with a prayer that directions be issued to the respondent – bank to extend time, for repayment of the loan amount, under one time settlement' from 24.03.2009, for a further period of six months. It was further prayed that the respondent – bank be restrained from taking coercive action against the petitioner and his family for recovery of loan amount. Notice of motion was issued on 23.03.2009 and the parties were directed to maintain status quo. Matter was adjourned to 02.04.2009. On the above said date, counsel for the respondent - bank Civil Writ Petition No.4533 of 2009 -2- brought it to the notice of the Court that the petitioner has sold the mortgaged property and is liable for criminal prosecution. Above fact was denied by the petitioner. In view of that, the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit in that regard, which accordingly was filed. Paragraph Nos.4 and 6 of the affidavit dated 28.05.2009 reads thus: - “4. That prior to being a guarantor in the said loan the petitioner constructed houses on these plots and had also entered into the agreement to sell of these houses. However, later on parties backed out from the agreement to sell and demanded their money back as these parties were also having other business relations with the petitioner and his family, petitioner was compelled to return the money. This put the petitioner into further financial constraint. 6. That it will not be out of place of mention here that it is for this reason only these persons who had purchased these plots had never made any complaint to any authority saying that the petitioner or his family had sold such plot or houses which are already under encumbrance.” Sale of the mortgaged property is virtually admitted. On 26.05.2009, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner/his son has not deposited the amount as per `one time settlement' with the bank. On 29.05.2009, following order was passed by the Court: - “Affidavit filed in Court is taken on record. To come up on 20.08.2009 for arguments. Meanwhile, if the petitioner shows his bona-fide by depositing some amount within a reasonable period, the respondent Bank may consider the desirability of granting Civil Writ Petition No.4533 of 2009 -3- some reasonable time to the petitioner.” Again on 20.08.2009, the petitioner was directed to bring some amount, to show his bona fide, to make the payment. On 25.08.2009, the petitioner handed over a cheque, for an amount of Rs.6 lac, in Court, to the respondent – bank. The petitioner was advised to make more payment before the next date of hearing i.e. today (17.09.2009). Counsel for the respondent – bank has brought it to the notice of this Court that when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was returned to the bank on the ground that the payment has been stopped. Above said fact clearly indicates that from the very beginning, when this writ petition was filed, the petitioner and his son had intention to defraud the bank. Petitioner's selling the mortgaged property shows that the petitioner is not an honest man and he was not ready to make repayment of the loan amount. Even, as per `one time settlement', amount was not deposited by the petitioner and his son. By handing over cheque to the bank and then stopping the payment is an action, on the basis of which this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Otherwise also, once the proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of Section 13 of the Act, a writ petition cannot be entertained. Dismissed, subject to payment of Rs.20,000/- as costs, to be deposited with the respondent – bank by the petitioner, if not deposited within one month from today, the respondent – bank shall be entitled to recover the same, as per law. September 17, 2009 (JASBIR SINGH) vinod* JUDGE