Allahabad High Court
Bank Of Maharashtra And Another vs State Of Up And 5 Others on 16 May, 2024
Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:88268-DB
Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5266 of 2024
Petitioner :- Bank Of Maharashtra And Another
Respondent :- State Of Up And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shruti Malviya
Counsel for Respondent :- Arif Ikbal,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Ms. Shruti Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for the State-respondents and Sri Arif Ikbal for respondent no.4.
3. The petitioners are secured creditor as per the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act, 2002'). They have given financial assistance to respondent no.4. Since there was default in repayment of loan, therefore, the petitioners had initiated proceedings against respondent no.4 for recovery of dues under the provisions of the Act, 2002. The order under Section 14 was passed on 21.06.2023. Since possession of the secured asset was not delivered to the petitioners despite order dated 21.06.2023, therefore, the instant petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the State-respondents to take appropriate steps for delivery of physical possession of the secured asset to the petitioners.
4. It appears that in purported compliance of the judgment of this Court in Shipra Hotels Limited and another Vs. State of U.P. and others: 2022 (12) ADJ 473 the petitioner-bank issued fifteen days notice to the borrower and guarantor on 26.03.2024 and 01.05.2024.
5. The District Magistrate, who is under obligation to serve such notice, had issued a notice dated 21.06.2023 giving three days time to the borrower/ guarantor to vacate the mortgaged property. The said notice was challenged by the borrower before Debts Recovery Tribunal vide Securitisation Application No.51 of 2023 and in order dated 04.04.2024, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, has observed that the bank/ civil authority before taking physical possession shall serve fifteen days notice on the borrower.
6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the District Administration is not cooperating in the matter. In the past, the notice given by the District Magistrate was of three days despite judgment of this Court in Shipra Hotels (supra) stipulating a period of fifteen days before possession is taken.
7. Counsel for respondent no.3 concedes that there is no stay in favour of the borrower nor any impediment in delivery of physical possession, except for the fact that notice as stipulated by this Court in its judgment in Shipra Hotels (supra) has not been served on the borrower so far.
8. Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, submits that the District Magistrate will issue fifteen days notice and would make all endeavour to deliver physical possession of the property to the petitioners in terms of order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal dated 04.04.2024.
9. Having regard to the aforesaid facts, we dispose of the instant petition by providing that the District Magistrate shall forthwith issue fifteen days notice to the borrower/ guarantor and, thereafter, make all endeavour to deliver physical possession of the property to the petitioner, provided there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 16.5.2024
AKShukla/-
(Kshitij Shailendra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
