M/S City Mall Developers Pvt. ... vs Allahabad Bank (Now Indian Bank)
2021 Latest Caselaw 3169 Chatt

                                                                           NAFR


             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                           W.P.(C.) No.4582 of 2021

   1. M/s City Mall Developers Pvt. Limited City Mall 36, N H - 6, G.E. Road,
       Raipur 492 006 Chhattisgarh Through Its Director Sanjay Gupta.

   2. Mr. Sanjay Gupta S/o Shri K.K. Gupta Aged About 48 Years City Mall
       36, N H - 6, G.E. Road, Raipur 492 006 Chhatisgarh.

   3. Smt. Pinki Gupta W/o Shri Sanjay Gupta Aged About 46 Years City Mall
       36, N H - 6, G.E. Road, Raipur 492 006 Chhatisgarh.

   4. Smt. Neelam Gupta W/o Shri Arun Gupta Aged About 50 Years City Mall
       36, N H - 6, G.E. Road, Raipur 492 006 Chhatisgarh.

                                                                  ---- Petitioners

                                    Versus

      Allahabad Bank (Now Indian Bank) Shyamnagar Branch Telibandha,
       Raipur, Chhattisgarh Through Its Authorised Officer

                                                                ---- Respondent

For Petitioners - Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate. For Respondent - Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harishankar Patel, Advocate.

S.B.- Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant Order on Board

16-11-2021

1. Heard.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that the respondent

bank has advertised E-auction of the mortgaged assets by notice dated

29.10.2021 in the newspapers. The petitioners have filed petition before

D.R.T. Jabalpur along with application praying for stay, but for the

reason that the seat of the presiding officer of D.R.T. Jabalpur has fallen

vacant, therefore, their petition and the application for stay is unheard.

Therefore, this petition has been filed. Relying on the orders passed by

this Court in W.P.(C.) No.4350 of 2021 dated 10.11.2021 and W.P.(C.)

No.4214/2021 dated 21.10.2021. It is prayed that the petitioners interest

may be protected.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the application for interim

relief and the submissions made in that respect.

4. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in the

case of Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore And Another Vs.

Mathew K.C. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85, in which, it has been held

that grant of stay against the recovery of dues of banks, financial

institutions etc. have serious adverse impact.

5. Further, relying on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of

I.C.I.C.I. Bank Limited And Others Vs. Umakanta Mohapatra And Others

reported in (2019) 13 SCC 497. It is submitted that the Supreme Court

has deprecated exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution

of India by the High Court in the cases under SARFAESI Act, 2002.

6. It is further submitted that the petitioner has adopted the modus-

operandi by which the auction preciously held have failed and this is the

third time, the auction notice has been issued. Hence, the interim

application may be rejected.

7. In reply, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the

reason for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226

Constitution of India is very clear that the D.R.T. Jabalpur is not

functional at present, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for relief.

8. Considered on the submissions, there is no denial that the petitioner is the borrower from respondent and the amount is outstanding for

payment. In W.P. No.23851 of 2021 before the High Court of Madhya

Pradesh between the parties M/s. Mishra Stone Crusher Vs. Punjab and

Sind Bank And Another. The stay order was granted in such a case by

imposing conditions. Hence, the prayer made by the petitioners is

allowed on following conditions:-

(a) The petitioners are directed to make deposit of Rs.2,00,00,000/-

with respondent bank within a period of 15 days from today, which

shall be subject to further order that may be passed by D.R.T.

Jabalpur.

(b) Subject to payment, as ordered, the auction proceeding initiated

against the petitioners shall remain stayed until the application for

stay filed before the D.R.T. Jabalpur is decided, subsequent to

appointment of the presiding officer of D.R.T. Jabalpur.

9. With these observations and directions, this petition is disposed off.

Sd/-

Monika                                       (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
                                                           Judge