NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)  NO. 123/2016 GIRISH SANGAPPA JAGGAL       PETITIONER(S)

                               VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T       KURIAN, J.

1. This  writ  petition  is  filed  aggrieved  by  the steps taken for recovery of the dues to Respondent No.2/Bank.   One  of  the  main  contentions  taken  is regarding the jurisdiction for initiating steps under The  Securitisation  and  Reconstruction  of  Financial Assets  and  Enforcement  of  Security  Interest  Act, 2002, since the Bank is a cooperative Bank.  In view of the huge dues, this Court enquired as to whether the petitioner would be in a position to make some deposit. It is reported that he does not have any resources to make any deposit.  In that background, we are of the view that it is in the interest of the petitioner that the steps for recovery are concluded at the earliest. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there  are  four  items  of  property,  as  detailed  in Schedule “B” (Annexure P-2).  Third item had already

1

been sold.  According to the petitioner, if first two items are sold, it may wipe out the entire liability. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Bank submits that  because  of  the  pending  litigation  nobody  is prepared to take a risk for purchasing the property even in a public auction. 4. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that it is in the interest of both the sides to put an end to this litigation by extending an equitable treatment to the petitioner debtor. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of directing  Respondent  No.2  to  first  proceed  against the  first  two  items  described  in  Schedule  “B” (Annexure P-2) and in case still the liabilities are not  wiped out  they may  proceed against  the fourth item.  We make it clear that before taking recourse to the sale of the fourth item, the petitioner shall also  be  put  to  notice  as  to  whether  he  would otherwise  clear  the  liability  for  the  remaining balance. 6. We also make it clear that the petitioner shall not take recourse to any other litigation regarding the procedure for sale without permission from this Court.  This condition we are imposing since we are informed  that  no  willing  purchaser  is  prepared  to take the property in view of the litigations.

2

7. Pending  application(s),  if  any,  shall  stand disposed of.         

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [R. BANUMATHI]  

NEW DELHI; JULY 21, 2017.

3