Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010114622025 2025:GAU-AS:7071 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2958/2025 JAY PRAKASH GUPTA AND ANR S/O LATE DUKHI RAM GUPTA, FLAT NO. 21 G-1, KUMUD ENCLAVE, PHAGUNA RABHA PATH, GUWAHATI-781019, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM 2: BIJAY GUPTA S/O JAY PRAKASH GUPTA FLAT NO. 21 G-1 KUMUD ENCLAVE PHAGUNA RABHA PATH GUWAHATI-781019 DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSA VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001 3:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001 4:CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE Page No.# 2/4 CHANDERMUKHI BLDG NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI-400021 5:THE REGIONAL MANAGER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA BHANGAGARH BRANCH KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI 6:THE BRANCH MANAGER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA BHANGAGARH BRANCH KAMRUP (M) ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. D SINHA, Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., SC, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 02.06.2025 Heard Ms. D. Singha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6. 2. Ms. D. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had defaulted in the payment of EMI in respect of the loan taken from the respondent Nos.5 & 6, for purchase of commercial vehicles. She submits that the petitioners have been unable to repay the EMI on time, due to losses being suffered by the petitioners and that the entire loan amount would be paid within 3(three) months. She however submits that in terms of the “Notice for Seizure of Hypothecated Assets” issued by the respondent Nos.5 & 6 Page No.# 3/4 on 22.05.2025, the petitioners are to pay the overdue amount by 6th of June, 2025. 3. Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 submits that no representation has been submitted to the Bank by the petitioner, with regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and as such, he has got no instructions with regard to whether 3(three) months’ time can be given to the petitioners for repayment of their loan amount. 4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 5. A perusal of the “Notice for Seizure of Hypothecated Assets” dated 22.05.2025, shows that the petitioners have been requested to call upon the respondent Nos.5 & 6 and to pay the entire overdue amount by 06.06.2025. However, the petitioners have neither called upon the respondent Nos.5 & 6 nor submitted any representation to them, with regard to their intention to pay the entire overdue loan amount within 3(three) months. 6. On considering the above, this Court is of the view that the petitioners should submit a representation to the respondent Nos.5 & 6, with regard to their proposal for payment of the entire overdue loan amount within 3(three) months. The respondent Nos.5 & 6 shall thereafter take a decision on the petitioners’ representation, after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. 7. The petitioners are accordingly directed to submit their representation to the respondent No.6, within 4(four) days from today, i.e., on or before 06.06.2025. In the event the petitioners submit a representation before the Page No.# 4/4 respondent No.6 on or before 06.06.2025, the “Notice for Seizure of Hypothecated Assets” dated 22.05.2025 shall be kept in abeyance, till a decision is taken by the respondents on the petitioners’ representation. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant