Surendra Jeet Singh Bedi vs I. C. I. C. I. Bank Limited
2022 Latest Caselaw 199 Chatt

                           HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                              Order Sheet
                                        WP(C) No. 175 of 2022
             Surendra Jeet Singh Bedi & Ors. Vs. ICICI Bank Limited & Another



11.01.2022             Shri Rahul Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioners.
                       Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, Dy. Advocate General for the State.
                       Issue notice to respondent No.1 by ordinary mode as well as by

registered mode on payment of PF within 10 days.

Let reply be filed within eight weeks.

Also heard on IA No.1, which is an application for grant of interim relief.

The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, the Act, 2002) passed by the District Magistrate, District Durg and there is a subsequent order for taking possession issued by the District Magistrate so far as the property of the petitioners which was mortgaged with the respondent No.1 for the purpose of grant of loan.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that out of the total 120 installments which the petitioners had to pay, they have already paid 97 installments. However, on account of certain medical emergency that arose in between as one of the petitioners were detected of suffering from Cancer and simultaneously because of the lock-down imposed on account of Covid-19 Pandemic there was a brief default on the part of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, as on date there is outstanding balance of roughly 24 Lakhs payable to the respondent Bank and which the petitioners would be clearing at the earliest and ensuring that the entire liability stands discharged. However, the petitioners are fearing dispossession of the property pursuant to the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act, 2002.

According to the petitioners simultaneously they had also approached the concerned DRT having jurisdiction assailing the order under Section 14 of the Act, 2002, however, since the concerned DRT was not functional on account of non availability of the regular Presiding Officer, the petitioners are compelled to approach this court for an interim protection meanwhile.

The counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in case of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal No.10911 of 2021 dated 16.12.2021 whereby the Supreme Court has observed that the High Courts meanwhile should entertain matters falling within the jurisdiction of the DRTs and DRATs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The contention of the petitioners are that the proceedings under Section 13 of the Act, 2002, which was initiated was never served upon the petitioners and an order has been passed in between which again is a ground that they have raised before the DRT. That, the petitioners are all willing to clear the outstanding amount at the earliest, however they should not be dispossessed of the property mortgaged with the respondent Bank in between.

Given the entire facts and circumstances of the case, purely as an interim measure subject to the petitioners depositing an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- (Twelve Lakh only) with the respondent No.1/Bank within a period of 30 days from today, the effect and operation of the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 and the consequential proceedings to be initiated by the respondent No.1 would remain stayed till the next date of hearing.

Let this matter be listed for hearing immediately after the reply of respondents are received.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge

Inder