Icici Bank Ltd vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The … on 17 July, 2026

    0
    6
    ADVERTISEMENT

    ——

    For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Advocate
    Mr. Rahul Sinha, Advocate
    Mr. Sparsh Kumar Rai, Advocate
    For the State : Mr. Baibhaw Gahlaut, AC to AAG-V
    ………
    02/ 17.07.2026: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
    the State.

    SPONSORED

    2. I am deciding this writ petition without the counter affidavit and
    without issuing notice to the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 as the issue in
    this writ petition involves law point with admitted facts and the only
    relevant fact is that the application under Section 14 of the SARFESAI
    Act has been adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner after hearing
    the borrower, thereupon directing the Bank to restructure the loan.
    The issues have already been dealt with and decided in judgment falls
    in W.P.(C) No.4270 of 2026 and other analogous cases. Further, it is not

    2026:JHHC:21093

    necessary to notice to the borrower on whose behest the Deputy
    Commissioner has passed the order, as the borrower has no locus standi
    at the stage of Section 14 of the SARFAESAI Act. He has got no right
    to be heard and the principle of nature justice does not come in play at
    the stage of Section 14 of the SARFAESAI Act, inasmuch as if there is
    any grievance the remedy lies in Section 17 of the SARFAESAI Act.



    Source link

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here