Page No.# 1/3 vs Bank Of Baroda And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 4481 Gua

                                                                Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010244462023




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : WP(C)/6294/2023

         M/S N.E. INFRATARADE AND ANR.
         A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR.
         NEERAJ DEKA, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT RGB ROAD, LAKHIMI
         NAGAR, GUWAHATI- 781005, ASSAM.

         2: MR NEERAJ DEKA
          S/O KRIPANATH DEKA
         R/O HOUSE NO. 20, LAKHIMI NAGAR
          P.O.- JAPORIGOG, P.S.- DISPUR
          GUWAHATI- 781005, ASSAM
          PROPRITOR OF M/S N.E. INFRATRADE

         VERSUS

         1. BANK OF BARODA AND ANR.
         A BODY CORPORATE CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES
         (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKING) ACT, 1970 HAVING ITS
         REGISTERED OFFICE AT MANDVI, BARODA, GUJRAT CARRYING ON
         BANKING BUSINESS AT VARIOUS PLACES THROUGH ITS VARIOUS
         OFFICES AND BRANCHES INCLUDING ONE AT BELTOLA, JAYANAGAR
         BRANCH, OPPOSITE AGILE HOSPITAL, JAYNAGAR CHARIALI, BELTOLA,
         GUWAHATI- 781028, ASSAM AND REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED
         REPRESENTATIVE.

         2:THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
          BANK OF BARODA
          BELTOLA, JAYANAGAR BRANCH
          OPPOSITE AGILE HOSPITAL
          JAYNAGAR CHARIALI, BELTOLA
          GUWAHATI- 781028, ASSAM
                                                                      Page No.# 2/3

For the Petitioner(s)       : Mr. N.N. Jha, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s)       : ..........................

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

19.10.2023

The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners herein seeking to assail the notices dated 23.03.2023 and 21.09.2023 issued to them under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) respectively, of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002) and also the order dated 10.07.203 passed by the Executive Magistrate, Kamrup (Metro) under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 directing taking over of possession of the assets mortgaged by the petitioners/borrowers for securing the loan taken from the respondent Bank.

Referring to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of M/s South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr ., reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 435, learned counsel for the petitioners was posed a query regarding maintainability of the instant writ petition because statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is indisputably available to the petitioners against the impugned action of the Bank.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, pointed out that a securitization application, being S.A. No.129/2023, with a prayer for interim relief has already been filed before the DRT, Guwahati Bench, wherein order has been pronounced, but the same has not been made online. The fervent contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that his clients are Page No.# 3/3

ready to repay the entire dues of the Bank and to settle the loan account. He thus implored the Court to exercise the extraordinary writ jurisdiction so as to grant interim relief against the action of the respondent Bank to sell the secured assets.

However, we are not in the least convinced by the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners because had this offer of the petitioners, that they are desirous of settling of the loan account, been bonafide, then such a stand could have been fortified by offering the proposal for repayment in the proceedings before the DRT. It is not in dispute that petitioners have not shown any intent to settle the loan account by putting up any such proposal before the Bank.

Hence, the instant writ petition is dismissed, as being not maintainable.

                      JUDGE                                CHIEF JUSTICE




Comparing Assistant