Amrik Chand Vs UCO Bank - SLP

PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING
SECTION _________
The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box):
 Central Act : (Title) -
 Section :
 Central Rule : (Title) ___
 Rule No(s): __
 State Act : (Title) __
 Section : ___
 State Rule : (Title) ___
 Rule No(s): ___
 Impugned Interim Order : (Date) ___
 Impugned Final/Decree : (Date) 11.05.2014
 High Court : (Name) Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
 Names of Judges : Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.
Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, J.
 Tribunal/Authority : (Name) ___
1. Nature of matter:   Civil  Criminal
2. (a) Petitioner/appellant No.1 : Amrik Chand
(b) e-mail ID : lawyerajay@gmail.com
(c) Mobile phone number : 9868909761
3. (a) Respondent No.1 : The Authorized Officer,

UCO Bank and others
(b) e-mail ID : ___
(c) Mobile phone number : ___
4. (a) Main category classification : -
(b) Sub classification : -

5. Not to be listed before : N.A.
6. Similar/Pending matter : N.A.
7. Criminal Matters : N.A.
(a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered  Yes  No
(b) FIR No. ____ Date: _____
(c) Police Station : ____
(d) Sentence Awarded : __
(e) Sentence Undergone : __
8. Land Acquisition Matters : N.A.
(a) Date of Section 4 notification : __
(b) Date of Section 6 notification : __
(c) Date of Section 17 notification : __
9. Tax Matters : State the tax effect : N.A.
10. Special Category (first petitioner/appellant only) :
 Senior citizen  65 years  SC/ST  Woman/child  Disabled
 Legal Aid case  In custody
11. Vehicle Number (in case of Motor Accident Claim matters) : N.A.
12. Decided cases with citation : ___
Date :
AJAY KUMAR SINGH
AOR for petitioner(s)/appellant(s)
Registration No. 2022

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(CIVIL /CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
SLP (C)/SLP (CRL.)/CIVIL APPEAL/CRL APPEAL NO. OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Amrik Chand …..Petitioner
Versus
The Authorized Officer,

UCO Bank and others … Respondents
OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION
1. The Petition is/ are within time.
2. The Petition is barred by time and there is delay of

_________ days in filing the same against order
dated ______________ and petition for Condonation
of ___________ days delay has been filed.
3. There is delay of ___________ days in re-filing the

petition and petition for Condonation of _________
days delay in re-filing has been filed.
BRANCH OFFICER
New Delhi
Dated :
(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2014

(Arising out of the Impugned Judgement and final order
dated 11.07.2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 14741 of
2012).
(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)
IN THE MATTER OF :
Versus

(P A P E R - B O O K)
(FOR INDEX: KINDLY SEE INSIDE)
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER : AJAY KUMAR SINGH

INDEX
Sl.No. Particulars. Pages.
1. Office Report on Limitation. 'A'
2 Listing Performa A1- A2
3. Synopsis/List of Dates & Events. B–
4. Copy of judgment/order dated

11.07.2014 passed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in CWP No. 14741 of 2012
5. Special Leave Petition with Affidavit.
6. APPENDIX :
THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF ACTS AND RULES :-
Section 13, 8A, 18, 18B. OF SARFAESI ACT,

And Rules 3 of Securitisation Rules.
7. Annexure-P-1:
A copy of Notice dated 13.5.2011
8. Annexure-P-2:
A copy of Possession
Notice on 8.12.2011
9. Annexure-P-3:
A copy of Possession
Notice dated 22.012.2012
10. Annexure-P-4:
A copy of the order dated 16.02.2012
the Ld. Tribunal- II Chandigarh
SA 139 of 2012
11. Annexure-P-5:
Debts Recovery Tribunal – II, Chandigarh
12. Annexure-P-6:
A copy Possession Notice
dated 24.03.2012
13. Annexure-P-7:
A copy order dated 30.03.2012 passed in
MA NO. 24/2012 in SA No.139/2012.
14. Annexure-P- 8:
A copy of the order passed by Hon’ble
High Court at Chandigarh in CWP
No. 6349 of 2012 dated 03.04.2012
15. Annexure-P-9:
A copy of the order passed by Hon’ble
High Court at Chandigarh in
CWP No. 6349 of 2012 dated 19.04.2012
16. Annexure-P-10:
A copy of Sale Certificate dated 25.04.2012
17. Annexure-P-11:
Confirming the sale and auction by DRT.
18. I.A. No. of 2014

An application for Condanation of delay in
re-filing delay
SYNOPSIS/ LIST OF DATES
That this case involves substantial questions of law
for the kind consideration of this Hon’ble Court.
(i) Whether a bonafide auction purchaser can be
deprived of his rights?
(ii) Whether or not his rights are required to be
protected under an auction which was
subsequently declared illegal?
In the instant at the respondents set up a hospital
at Ludhiana in the name of Ludhiana Mediciti in 2004.
In the meantime they approached the respondent bank
for loan to finance home of their projects. The
respondent bank after considering their proposal
approved the loan. It will not be out of place to mention
here that by this time the hospital has come into
existence and running well providing 100 indoor facility
and nearly 700/800out door patients in various branch.
Not only these but the respondents bank also approved
a credit facility of Rs. 175 lacs in favour of respondents.
In the respondents failed to clear their installments and
dispute several communication exchanged between
respondents and respondent bank, no results came. The
debt of the respondent bank remain asides. That due to

casual approach of the respondent’s bank was faced to
declare the account of the respondent/company as NPA
and had to initiate proceedings under the provisions of
SARFAESI Act to recover the debt. The petitioner herein
is the auction purchaser of the one of the properties
auctioned by the respondent bank which was
challenged before Ld. DRT-II, which upheld the above
said auction. Vide order dated 12.07.2012. This order
was challenged by the respondent before the Hon’ble
High Court of Punjab & Haryana which set aside the
auction and without considering the fact that the
petitioner herein was a bonafide purchaser and had
invested lots of him finance to run and manage the
property so purchased in the auction. The claim of even
are started below leading to the filing a SLP.
2004 That the respondent Dr. B.S. Shekhon
alongwith other respondents being joint
promoter set up a hospital at Ludhiana
namely “Ludhiana Mediciti”. They approached
the respondent bank for grant of loan to
finance certain project. The respondent bank
sanctioned the loan proposal for their project.

2006 That the respondent company/hospital had
come into existence and was functioning in
fullswing.
22.10.2009 That the respondent bank in addition to
above term loan further sanctioned a cash
credit facility of Rs. 175 lacs in favour of
respondents. That the respondent made
defaults in repayment.
13.5.2011 That the respondent bank declared the
principal borrower as a “willful defaulter” and
his account as NPA and issued demand
notice dated 13.5.2011 claiming Rs. 22,84,74,
378.43 due as on date. A copy of Notice dated
13.5.2011 is being annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE P-1. (Page to )
01.12.2011 That the respondent bank vide sale notice
dated 01.12.2011 gave 30 days to the
respondent to repay the loan else the secured
assets would be put to sale.
8.12.2011 That the respondent bank got published a
possession notice on 8.12.2011 pertaining to
property at Sr.1(i) to (vi)as mentioned in the
sale notice. A copy of Possession Notice on

21.12.2011 That the respondent bank issued another
possession notice dated 22.012.2012 with
regard to properties mentioned at Sr. # 2, 3 &
4 in the sale notice date 22.012.2012. A copy
of Possession Notice dated 22.012.2012 is
being annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-3.
(Page to )
17.01.2012 That the Bank publish a sale notice on
17.01.2012 wherein they proposed to sell the
assets of the Company as well as that of the
respondent on 18.02.2012
31.01.2012 That the UCO Bank issued public notice on
31.01.2012 in daily newspaper Times of
India, for the sale of plot No. 200-201
measuring 23 marla 44 square feet (700
square yards) in Khasra No. 128, 129/1, 131,
143, 144, 2428/ 146, 2430/147, 127 issued
by UCO Bank, Zonal Office, SCO 55-57,
Sector-17 B, Chandigarh situated at Vevek
Enclave, Nakodar Road, Khurla, Jalandhar.

16.02.2012 That the Company and the guarantors
(including the respondent herein) impugned
the said action by way of filing an application
in the Ld. Tribunal below vide SA #
139/2012. Vide an order dated 16.02.2012,
the Ld. Tribunal was pleased to, inter-alia,
direct the Company to pay a sum of Rs. 1.00
Crore before 11.00 AM on 17.02.2012
alongwith a sum of Rs. 1.00 lac towards
expenses incurred on publication and sale.
The Company was further directed to deposit
various amounts with the Bank and also
submit a proposal for settlement on
17.02.2012 and the Bank was directed to
decide the said proposal within 15 days. A
copy of the order dated 16.02.2012 the Ld.
Tribunal- II Chandigarh SA 139 of 2012 is
(Page to )
21.03.2012 That SA # 139/2012 which was listed on
21.03.2012 was dismissed by the Ld.
Tribunal as the Applicants therein (including
the respondent) did not appear on the date
fixed for non prosecution. A copy of the order

dated 21.03.2012 Debts Recovery Tribunal –
II, Chandigarh is being annexed herewith as
24.03.2012 That the said property could not be sold vide
Notice dated 31.01.2012 so the respondent
Bank further issued a fresh notice dated
23.03.2012, which was published in the
newspapers on 24.03.2012, whereby it
proposed to sell the property in question by
way of public auction on 31.03.2012 of the
said Notice has already been placed on record
A copy Possession Notice dated 24.03.2012 is
(Page to )
30.03.2012 That immediately MA NO. 24/2012 in SA
No.139/2012 was filed on behalf of all the
Borrowers (including the respondent herein)
seeking recalling of the order dated
21.03.2012 before DRT and also stay of the
auction proceedings in pursuance of the sale
notice. The said application was however
dismissed vide order dated 30.03.2012. A
copy order dated 30.03.2012 passed in MA
NO. 24/2012 filed in SA No.139/2012 is

(Page to )
03.04.2012 That the respondent herein alongwith the
Principal Borrower and other guarantors and
mortgagers filed CWP No. 6349/2012 – M/s
IAA Hospital Pvt. Ltd. V/s The Authorized
Officer, UCO Bank before Hon’ble High Court.
Vide an interim order dated 03.04.2012
Hon’ble High Court was pleased to inter-alia,
direct the Company to deposit a sum of Rs.
23.00 Crores on or before 17.04.2012. A copy
of the order passed by Hon’ble High Court at
Chandigarh in CWP No. 6349 of 2012 dated
19.04.2012 However the aforesaid amount, as directed by
Hon’ble High Court, could not be deposited
and on 19.04.2012 the petition was
withdrawn with liberty to approach the Ld.
Tribunal. A copy of the order passed by
Hon’ble High Court at Chandigarh in CWP
No. 6349 of 2012 dated 19.04.2012 is being
annexed herewith as ANNEXURE P-9.
(Page to )
25.4.2012 The Bank handed over the possession of the
property to the auction purchaser i.e. the
petitioner as 25.04.2012 sale certificate dated
25.04.2012 and 26.04.2012 were issued in
favour of the auction purchaser petitioner
herein with regard to three properties in
question sale certificate dated 25.04.2012
and 26.04.2012.
That after receiving the full sale price of the
plot in question, the possession of the
property was handed over to the petitioner on
26.04.2012 by the Bank on conformation of
the sale. The Bank further issued sale
certificate in favour of the petitioner on
26.04.2012. Now the petitioner is in
possession of the property i.e. plot No. 200-
201 measuring 23 marla 44 square feet (700
square yards) in Khasra No. 128, 129/1, 131,
143, 144, 2428/146, 2430/147, 127 situated
at Vivek Enclave, Nakodar Road, Khurla
Kingra, Jalandhar which was earlier in the
name if Smt. Kulwinder Kaur w/o Sh.
Balwinder Singh Sekhon. A copy of Sale

Certificate dated 25.04.2012 is being annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE P-10 (Page to )
12.07.2012 That pursuant to withdrawal of the said
petition, the respondent filed SA No.
178/2012 and the Company and its Director
filed SA No. 179/2012 on 20.04.2012
impugning the sale notice, Main arguments
were heard in SA No. 179/2012 and both
SA’s were decided by a common order. That
one intending bidder, Dr. Nitin Kumar
Aggarwal also filed SA No. 185 of 2012
challenging the same auction primarily on the
ground that adequate publicity had not been
given and that he was ready and willing to
give a higher bid for the same. The SA was
also dismissed by the Ld. Tribunal. The Ld.
Tribunal held that there is no irregularity and
fraud in the sale.
The sale deed has also been executed in
favour of the petitioner at Vasika No. 2574
dated 27.7.2012. The petitioner has also paid
Rs. 6,30,000/- as stamp fee for the
registration of said sale deed. After execution
of the sale deed, mutation no. 5904 has been

entered in the name of petitioner on
14.8.2012, in the revenue records. A copy of
order dated 12.07.2012 confirming the sale
and auction by DRT is being annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE P-11.
(Page to )
11.7.2012 That aggrieved in the order of Tribunal dated
12.07.2012 Civil Writ Petition No. 14741/
2012, was filed against the impugned order
dated 12.7.2012, before the Hon’ble High
Court of the Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh. That vide its order dated
11.07.2012 the Hon’ble High Court set aside
the order passed by Ld. DRT-II and set aside
the auction sale without appreciating the
material on record.
.09.2014 Hence the present Special Leave Petition.

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2014
(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)
IN THE MATTER OF:-
BETWEEN : POSITION OF PARTIES

In the High In this Hon'ble
Court Court
Amrik Chand, S/o Shardu Respondent Petitioner
Ram R/o Village Dharampura No. 4
Abadi PO Khambra Nakodar
Road, Jalandhar, Punjab
Versus
1. The Authorized Officer Respondent Contesting

UCO Bank No. 1 Respondent
Zonal Office : No. 1
SCO # 55-56-57,
Sector-17B, Chandigarh
Branch Office :
Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana,
Punjab
2. M/s Ludhiana Mediways Respondent Contesting

481, Model Town No. 2 Respondent
Ludhiana through its No. 2
Authorized Representative
3. Mr. HR Singh Respondent Contesting

Authorized Officer No. 3 Respondent
M/s Ludhiana Mediways No. 3
481, Model Town,
Ludhiana, Punjab
4. Gp Capt SS Sekhon Petitioner Contesting

S/o Late Mr. Jagir Singh Respondent
Sekhon R/o # 1881, St. # No. 4
5, Maharaj Nagar,
Ludhiana, Punjab
Presently at:
#15 BRD, AF WADSAR
Gandhinagar (Gujarat)
5. Debts Recovery Tribunal-II Respondent Performa
2nd Floor, Punjab National No. 5 Respondent
Bank, Banks Square, No. 5
Sector 17-B, Chandigarh
To,
The Hon'ble Chief Justice of India,

And His Companion Justices of the
Supreme Court of India, New Delhi
The humble Petition of the
Petitioners above-named;
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. The petitioner is filing the present petition seeking
Special Leave to Appeal against the Impugned and
final order dated 11.07.2014 passed by the Hon'ble
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in
CWP No. 14741 of 2012 whereby the Hon'ble High
Court was pleased to dismiss the same.
2. QUESTIONS OF LAW:
The following questions of law arise for consideration
by this Hon'ble Court:
(i) Whether a bonafide auction purchaser can be
deprived of his rights?
(ii) Whether or not his rights are required to be
protected under an auction which was subsequently
declared illegal?
3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 3(2):
The petitioner states that no other petition for
Special Leave to Appeal has been filed by him
against the impugned Judgment and final order
dated 11.07.2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.
14741 of 2012.
4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULE 5:
The Annexures P-1 to P- produced alongwith the
SLP are true copies of the pleadings/documents,
which formed part of the records of the case in the
Court/Tribunal below against whose order the Leave
to Appeal is sought for in this Petition.
5. GROUNDS:
Leave to Appeal is sought on the following grounds.
A) That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that
the Writ Petition filed in respondent was not
maintainable as the respondent have the alternative
remedy of filing an appeal U/s 18 of the SARFAESI
Act (Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act),
2002 to the Ld. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal,
New Delhi against the order dated 12.7.2012 passed

by the Ld. DRT-II, Chandigarh. This Hon’ble Court
has held in catena of judgments that where the party
has an alternative remedy to file the appeal, in that
eventuality the writ petition is not maintainable.
B) That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that
Hon’ble Court in 2010 (3) RCR (civil) S.C. Pg. 96
titled as United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon
& others, 2012 (2) RCR (civil) S.C. Pg 676 titled as
Kaniyalal Lalchand Sachdev & others Vs. State of
Maharashtra & others, has held that of alternate
remedy if available then writ petition is not
maintainable.
C) That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that
the respondent No. 4 have got no locus standi and
cause of action to file afore titled writ petition, as the
respondent No. 4 have admittedly defaulted in
maintaining the financial discipline from very
beginning and abide by their repeated undertakings
given to the bank, to the Ld. Debt Recovery Tribunal
& to Hon’ble High Court. The respondent bank had
accommodated the respondent No. 4 on number of
occasions and had given a long rope of time to
regularize its accounts, but still then they failed to
maintain the financial discipline. Even otherwise,
the bank had requested the respondent No.4

repeatedly, as well as repeated notices/ remainders
were issued to them to adjust the outstanding loan
amount, but they failed to clear their outstanding
liability. The respondent No. 4 had even failed to
service the interest. Hence, under these forced
circumstances, the account of the respondent No. 4
was declared N.P.A. and bank had to resort for
proceedings under the provisions of the SARFAESI
Act & the Rules thereto. Further, their other concern
i.e. Hospital at Khanna; “Mediciti Hospital” accounts
(in which respondent No. 2 is a Director) have been
declared fraud by the Vigilance Department of the
Head Office, Kolkata of respondent Bank vide letter
dated 30.8.2011, whereby the huge amount financed
by the respondent bank to their other concern i.e.
M/s Mediciti Hospital (P) Ltd. was siphoned off and
misappropriated and the complaint in this respect
for committing misappropriation and cheating has
been made to the CBI for the registration of the FIR.
Thus, the respondent No. 4 have no locus standi nor
any cause of action has arisen in their favour.
D) That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that
the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser and has
complied all terms and conditions mentioned in the

sale notice. The petitioner after complying all terms
and conditions has also deposited the entire amount
within the stipulated period.
E) That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that
prior to the present writ petition, one SA No. 139 of
2012 was filed before Tribunal and the same was
dismissed as withdrawn. Against that no appeal was
filed before Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi.
Apart from it, respondent filed Civil Writ Petition No.
6349 of 2012 before Hon’ble High Court. In the said
writ petition, notice of motion was issued by the
Division Bench on April 3, 2012. Vide said order,
respondent was directed to deposit Rs. 23 crores
with respondent No. 1 on or before 17.4.2012 to
establish his bonafide. It was specifically stated in
the said order that if the amount is deposited by
17.4.2012, the sale shall not be confirmed in favour
of third party. Rs. 23 crores which was required to
be deposited by the petitioner as per the order of
Hon’ble High learned counsel for respondent
withdrew the petition on 19.4.2012 with liberty to
approach any other authority in accordance with law
without showing.
F) That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that
the secured properties under challenge have already
been sold under the SARFAESI Act by the
respondent Bank and accordingly the Sale
Certificate dated 25.4.2012 & 26.04.2012 have been
issued to the Auction purchasers i.e. petitioner. The
respondent Bank on the same day has handed over
the possession in respect to the said properties to
the petitioner.
G) That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that
the respondent bank at the request and proposal of
the respondent No. xx accommodated and agreed to
restructure the account vide letter dated 30.5.2011,
but they failed to pay undertaken amount in June
2011 amounting to Rs. 29,52,000/- thereby
reducing the outstanding balance from
9,36,25,000/- to 9,06,73,000/- and service the
interest for the months July 2011 onwards to
December, 2011. Thereafter, the respondents were
required to pay equated monthly installments as per
the schedule beginning from January, 2012.
However, the respondent No. failed to adhere to
said undertaken terms. Accordingly, the respondent
bank proceeded under the SARFAESI Act.

H) That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that
the respondent vide their letter dated 07.07.2011
gave an undertaking that approximately Rs. 1.00
Crore by sale of two properties would be deposited in
the Cash Credit account and further Rs. 1.00 Crore
would be deposited in the Term loan accounts by
31st December, 2011, but they failed to comply with
this undertaking also. Accordingly, the respondent
bank proceeded for initiating action under the
SARFAESI Act & the Rules thereto
I) That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that
writ petition was not maintainable in view of the fact
that the respondent have already challenged the Sale
Notice by earlier filing the writ petition before
Hon’ble High Court bearing No. 6349 of 2012 titled
as M/s IAA Hospital Pvt. Ltd. & others Vs. UCO
Bank. The respondent therein on 3.4.2012 had
undertaken to deposit a sum of Rs. 23 Crore on or
before 17.4.2012 & even stated that they have a
buyer of the Hospital who is prepared to pay much
more than the auction price, but the respondent
failed to honor their undertaking & bring any better
buyer on the next dated fixed i.e. 19.4.2012. When
Hon’ble High Court was inclined to dismiss afore

titled writ petition on merits on 19.4.2012, the
respondent withdrew the said writ petition with
liberty to approach any other authority in
accordance with law.
J) That this Hon’ble Court may please appreciate that
the respondent had approached the Ld. Debt
Recovery Tribunal as well as Hon’ble High Court
repeatedly, for the same cause of action & thus
involved in misusing the process of law and filing
false & frivolous litigation. The respondent had
earlier filed SA No. 139 of 2012 (dismissed on
21.3.2012 MA No. 24 of 2012 (dismissed on
30.3.2012 SA No. 179 of 2012 (dismissed on
12.7.2012, CWP No. 15256 of 2012 (dismissed as
withdrawn on 4.9.2012) & filed titled writ petition,
challenging the same cause of action i.e. Sale notice
dated 23.3.2012.
6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
(i) That the Petitioner has this day filed the
accompanying Special Leave Petition before this
Hon'ble Court Against the impugned judgment and
CWP No. 14741 of 2012.

(ii) That the facts and circumstances have been set out
in the aforesaid Special Leave Petition. The Petitioner
craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to refer to and rely
upon the contents of the same for the sake of
present grounds.
(iii) That the petitioner has a good prima facie case and
the balance of convenience is also in favour of the
petitioner.
(iv) No prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the
respondent(s) herein if the interim relief as prayed
for are granted and the petitioner (s) will suffer grave
harm and irreparable hardship if the interim relief
are not granted.
(v) That in the facts and circumstances of the case, it
would be just and proper that the order dated
11.07.2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.
14741 of 2012 may kindly be stayed.
7. MAIN PRAYER:
The Petitioner most respectfully prays that this
Hon'ble Court may pleased to:
(a) grant Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India, against the impugned
judgment and Final order dated 11.07.2014 passed

by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in CWP No. 14741 of 2012;
(b) pass any other order and further order or orders as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF:
It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may be pleased to:
(a) Grant ad-interim ex-parte stay of operation of the
judgment and order dated 11.07.2014 passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh in CWP No. 14741 of 2012; and
(b) Pass any other order and further order or orders as
facts and circumstances of the case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE
PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.
DRAWN BY: FILED BY:
AJAY KUMAR SINGH

Advocate for the Petitioner
New Delhi.
Drawn on: .09.2014
Filed on : .09.2014
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ________OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF :
Versus

CERTIFICATE
Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to
the pleadings before the Court/Tribunal whose order is
challenged and the other documents relied upon in those
proceedings. No additional facts, documents or grounds have
been taken therein or relied upon in the Special Leave Petition.
It is further certified that the copies of the documents/
annexures attached to the Special Leave Petition are necessary
to answer the question of law raised in the petition or to make
out grounds urged in the Special Leave Petition for
consideration of this Hon'ble Court. This certificate is given on
the basis of the instructions given by the petitioner/person
authorised by the petitioner whose affidavit is filed in support of
the S.L.P.
NEW DELHI. FILED BY:
FILED ON: .09.2014
(AJAY KUMAR SINGH)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER.
APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN
FILING THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India
And His Companion Justices of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
The humble petition of the
Petitioner above-named;
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the petitioner has this day filed the
accompanying Special Leave Petition before this
Hon’ble Court against the impugned judgment and
R.S.A. No. 662 of 1994.
2. That the facts and circumstances have been set out
in the aforesaid Special Leave Petition. The petitioner
craves leave of this Hon’ble Court to refer to and rely
upon the contents of the same for the sake of present
application.
3. That the delay has occurred in filing Special Leave
Petition because of the reason that after the
pronouncement of the impugned Judgment, the

certified copy of the impugned order was applied for
on 12.5.2006.
4. That the certified copy of the same has been received
on 30.5.2006. After receiving the certified copy it was
sent to the Petitioner’s Advocate at Chandigarh for
getting his opinion whether to file Special Leave
Petition. Then the Advocate took sometime for filing
the Special Leave Petition.
5. That therefore, the delay of days in filing the
instant Special Leave Petition is neither intentional
nor deliberate and was due to the reasons beyond the
control of the petitioner.
6. That the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss
and injury and can not be compensated if the delay in
filing the Special Leave Petition is not condoned.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the
case and in the interest of justice, most respectfully prayed
that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:-
(a) Condone the delay of days in filing the
accompanying Special Leave Petition against the
impugned judgement and final order dated

Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 662
of 1994;
(b) Pass any other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS YOUR
PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY
New Delhi. FILED BY:
Filed on: -
(AJAY KUMAR SINGH)

IN THE MATTER OF :
Versus
AFFIDAVIT
I, Amrik Chand, S/o Shardu Ram R/o Village Dharampura

Abadi PO Khambra Nakodar Road, Jalandhar, Punjab at present
at New Delhi, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under: -
1. That I am the Petitioner of the above mentioned case and am

competent to swear to this affidavit.
2. That I have read the accompanying Special Leave Petition

containing pages to (paragraphs 1 to grounds A
to ), List of dates (Pages B to ), interlocutory
applications and understood the contents thereof. The facts
stated there in are true and correct from the record of the
case, which I believe to be true to the best of my knowledge
& belief.
3. That the Annexures are true copies of their respective
originals.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION: -
Verified at New Delhi on this day of September 2014, I
the above named deponent, do hereby verify that the contents of
the above affidavit are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge & belief. No part of it is false and nothing material has
been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT
IN THE MATTER OF :
Versus
AFFIDAVIT


2. That I have read the accompanying interlocutory application

for condonation of delay in re-filing and understood the
contents thereof. The facts stated there in are true and
correct from the record of the case, which I believe to be true
to the best of my knowledge & belief.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION: -
DEPONENT
I.A. NO OF 2014
IN
IN THE MATTER OF :
Versus
APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN
RE-FILING THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and

His Companion Justices of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India
The Humble petition of the
Petitioners above named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH AS UNDER :
1. That the petitioner herein has this day filed the Special
Leave Petition in this Hon’ble Court against the
impugned judgment and final order dated 18.10.2006
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No. 662 of 1994 and
the contents there of may kindly be read and treated as
part of this application also.

2. That delay in re-filling the present petition is not
deliberate. The delay occurred due to the procurement
of the document which is required to annex in this case
and also forming part of the record of courts below.
3. That the delay in re-filing the accompanying special
leave petition is neither willful nor intentional but was
due to the circumstances beyond the control of the
petitioner as indicated herein above.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:-
(a) Condone the delay of days in re-filing the
Special Leave Petition against the order dated
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A. No.
2610 of 2012.
(b) And /or pass such other and further orders which
interest of justice.
FILED BY:
(AJAY KUMAR SINGH)

FILED ON: .01.2014

NEW DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
Versus
AFFIDAVIT


2. That I have read the accompanying interlocutory application

for condonation of delay in re-filing and understood the
contents thereof. The facts stated there in are true and
correct from the record of the case, which I believe to be true
to the best of my knowledge & belief.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION: -
DEPONENT
I.A. NO OF 2015
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 32101 OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF :
Versus
APPLICATION FOR CLARIFICATION
/MODIFICATION OF ORDER DATED
03.12.2014 PASSED IN THE AFORESAID
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION.
To
The Hon’ble Chief Justice of India and

His Companion Justices of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India
The Humble petition of the
Petitioners above named
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH AS UNDER :
1. That the petitioner herein has filed the in this Hon’ble
Court against the impugned judgment and final order
dated 11.07.2014 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 14741

of 2012 and the contents there of may kindly be read and
treated as part of this application also.
2. That this Hon’ble Court has pleased to disposed of this
special leave petition on 03.12.2014 ANNEXURE-A-1
(page No. 5) as infructuous in view of the order dated
10.11.2014 in SLP (C) No. 22570 of 2014 by this Hon’ble
Court. Copy of order dated 10.11.2014 passed in Special
Leave Petition (C) No. 22570 of 2014 is ANNEXURE-A-2.
(page No. 6-7)
3. That in the meanwhile, the SLP (C) No. 22570 of 2014 was
again revived by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated
09.01.2015 and subsequently this Hon’ble Court has
pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 (M/s IAA Hospital
Pvt. Ltd) to deposit an amount of Rs. 30 Crores before this
Hon’ble Court within 2 months from the day of order i.e.
17.03.2015. Copy of order dated 09.01.2015 passed in
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22570 of 2014 is
ANNEXURE-A-3. (page No. )
4. That it is submitted that the petitioner herein is
directly affected by the aforesaid order passed by this
Hon’ble Court in SLP (C) No. 22570 of 2014 on
17.03.2015. Annexed and Marked as ANNEXURE-A-4
(page No. 8-9) is order dated 17.03.2015 passed in SLP (C)
No. 22570 of 2014.

5. That in these circumstances, it is expedient and in the
interest of justice that the order dated 03.12.2014 may
be clarified or modified to the extend to protect the
interest of the petitioner herein.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:-
(a) Clarified or modified order dated 03.12.2014
passed in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 32101 of
2014.
(b) And /or pass such other and further orders which
interest of justice.
FILED BY:
(AJAY KUMAR SINGH)

FILED ON: .04.2015

NEW DELHI
I.A. NO OF 2015
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 32101 OF 2014
IN THE MATTER OF :
Versus
INDEX
Sl.No. Particulars. Pages.

1. Application for Clarification/
Modification of order dated
03.12.2014 passed in the
aforesaid Special Leave Petition
with affidavit
2. ANNEXURE-A-1
Copy of order dated 03.12.2014 passed
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special
Leave Petition (C) No.32101 of 2014
3. ANNEXURE-A-2
Leave Petition (C) No. 22570 of 2014
4. ANNEXURE-A-3
5. ANNEXURE-A-4
FILED BY:
(AJAY KUMAR SINGH)

FILED ON: .04.2015
NEW DELHI

Amrik Chand Vs UCO Bank - SLP

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Amrik Chand Vs UCO Bank - SLP

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

PROFORMA FOR FIRST LISTING

The case pertains to (Please tick/check the correct box):

 Central Act : (Title) -

 Central Rule : (Title) ___

 State Act : (Title) __

 State Rule : (Title) ___

 Rule No(s): ___

 Impugned Interim Order : (Date) ___

 Impugned Final/Decree : (Date) 11.05.2014

 High Court : (Name) Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

 Names of Judges : Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal, J.

Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, J.

 Tribunal/Authority : (Name) ___

1. Nature of matter:   Civil  Criminal

2. (a) Petitioner/appellant No.1 : Amrik Chand

(b) e-mail ID : lawyerajay@gmail.com

(c) Mobile phone number : 9868909761

3. (a) Respondent No.1 : The Authorized Officer,

(b) e-mail ID : ___

(c) Mobile phone number : ___

4. (a) Main category classification : -

(b) Sub classification : -

6. Similar/Pending matter : N.A.

7. Criminal Matters : N.A.

(a) Whether accused/convict has surrendered  Yes  No

(b) FIR No. ____ Date: _____

(c) Police Station : ____

(d) Sentence Awarded : __

(e) Sentence Undergone : __

8. Land Acquisition Matters : N.A.

(a) Date of Section 4 notification : __

(b) Date of Section 6 notification : __

(c) Date of Section 17 notification : __

9. Tax Matters : State the tax effect : N.A.

10. Special Category (first petitioner/appellant only) :

 Senior citizen  65 years  SC/ST  Woman/child  Disabled

 Legal Aid case  In custody

12. Decided cases with citation : ___

AJAY KUMAR SINGH

AOR for petitioner(s)/appellant(s)

Registration No. 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Amrik Chand …..Petitioner

The Authorized Officer,

OFFICE REPORT ON LIMITATION

1. The Petition is/ are within time.

2. The Petition is barred by time and there is delay of

3. There is delay of ___________ days in re-filing the

(CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2014

(WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF)

Amrik Chand …..Petitioner

The Authorized Officer,

(FOR INDEX: KINDLY SEE INSIDE)

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER : AJAY KUMAR SINGH

Sl.No. Particulars. Pages.

1. Office Report on Limitation. 'A'

2 Listing Performa A1- A2

3. Synopsis/List of Dates & Events. B–

4. Copy of judgment/order dated

5. Special Leave Petition with Affidavit.

Section 13, 8A, 18, 18B. OF SARFAESI ACT,

18. I.A. No. of 2014

That this case involves substantial questions of law

(b) FIR No. Date: _