Ashutosh Vaidya vs Debts Recovery Tribunal & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 617 HP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No.386 of 2021.

.

Date of Decision : January 18, 2021.

Ashutosh Vaidya                                           ...Petitioner.

                           Versus





Debts Recovery Tribunal & Others                         ...Respondents.
Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. M.A. Safee, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate for

respondent No.2.

COURT PROCEEDINGS CONVENED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE

Anoop Chitkara, Judge (oral).

An auction-purchaser has come up before this Court on

the grounds that the Punjab National Bank has not delivered the

physical, actual and constructive possession to the petitioner despite

his having paid the entire amount.

2. Notice, which is confined only to the second respondent. Mr.

Sunil Kumar, Advocate appears and accepts service of notice on its

behalf.

3. In view of the nature of the order, I propose to pass, no

response is required from the respondents.

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

4. The petitioner was an auction purchaser pursuant to the

acquisition of the property under SARFAESI Act. The Punjab National

.

Bank sold the property vide an auction to the petitioner, who

allegedly paid the entire amount. After that the dispute arose

between second respondent-Punjab National Bank and third

respondent- Bank of Baroda.

5. The petitioner filed an application before DRT, which was

registered as IA No.218 of 2020 for preponing the case, which was

already fixed for hearing on 22nd March, 2021, on the grounds that the

although he had paid the entire amount, yet the physical possession

of the property is not delivered to him. vide order dated 2.11.2020,

learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal (I), Chandigarh,

dismissed the application on the grounds that there is no urgency to

prepone this case.

6. The fact of the matter is that the auction purchaser had paid

the entire amount and allegedly after obtaining the loan of

approximately rupees fifty lacs from Pnujab National Bank, on which,

he is supposed to not only pay the interest, but also refund the

installments. Once the auction purchaser had paid the entire amount,

learned Debts Recovery Tribunal should have considered this fact that

the auction purchaser would come up under huge and unbearable

financial burden because all his plans would go into jeopardize.

Therefore, there is no reason for the learned Presiding Officer to

dismiss the application and he should have heard the entire matter by

preponing the same.

.

7. Given above, the petition is disposed of with a request to the

Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh to prepone the matter and

decide the same as early as possible preferably within one month

from today. It is made clear that there is no need to apply for the

certified copy of this order and learned counsel for the petitioner

can download the same from the website of High Court and attest

the same to be true copy. In case any person has any objection

about the authenticity of the same, then such person may also

download and cross-check. Pending application(s), if any, are

closed.

(Anoop Chitkara), Vacation Judge January 18, 2021 (ps)