Mr. Sewaram Panjwani vs Poonawalla Housing Finance ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 318 Chatt

                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                                       Order Sheet
                                   WPC No. 323 of 2022
         Mr. Sewaram Panjwani Versus Poonawalla Housing Finance Limited

19.01.2022          Mr. Ankit Singhal, counsel for the petitioner.

                    Mr. Rahul Jha, GA for the State/respondent no.2 & 3.

Let notice be issued to the respondents on payment of PF by ordinary

as well as by registered post to be paid within a period of 10 days.

Present writ petition has been filed assailing the Sarfaesi proceedings

initiated by the respondent Bank whereby the mortgaged property of the

petitioner seems to be the auctioned by the respondent Bank under the

Sarfaesi Act.

The present writ petition is being entertained by this Court only on the

ground that only in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of M.P. State Bar Council Vs. Union of India wherein the Hon'ble

Supreme Court has permitted the High Courts to entertain the writ petitions

which are otherwise to be heard and decided by the DRT's and DRAT's.

Challenge is to the auction of the petitioner's property carried out by

the respondent no.1. The ground of challenge is that the statutory requirement

under The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 has not been followed

by the respondent no.1 in the course of conducting the auction.

On a query being put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he fairly

concedes that as on 2019 the outstanding amount payable by the petitioner

borrower with the respondent no.1 Bank was over 16 Lakh rupees. This clearly indicates that interest on the said amount in the next two year also by

now has accrued at the rate of 14.5% per annum. The writ petition at this

juncture is being entertained only on the ground that DRT having jurisdiction

i.e. the DRT, Jabalpur is not functional on account of regular Presiding Officer

not being appointed for quite some time now.

Given the said facts and also taking note of the contentions put forth by

the learned counsel for the petitioner, let notice on application for grant of

interim relief also be issued to respondent no.1, who are further directed to file

their response within a period of four weeks.

So far as the interim protection prayed for by the petitioner is

concerned, considering the total facts and circumstances of the case and

admitted factual position of the petitioner owes the respondent no.1 Bank an

amount of 16 Lakh Rupees as on December, 2019, subject to the petitioner

praying an amount of 8 Lakh Rupees within a period of 30 days to the

respondent No.1 Bank the further proceedings to the auction which has been

finalized by the respondent no.1 Bank shall remain stayed till the next date of

hearing.

It is made clear that in case if petitioners fail to deposit the requisite

amount within 30 days the interim order granted by this Court would

automatically lose its efficacy.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE

Rohit