M/S. Sidhu Enterprises And Ors vs The District Magistrate
2021 Latest Caselaw 16185 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14765/2021

1. M/s. Sidhu Enterprises And Ors., Through Its Proprietor, Gurjeet Singh S/o Shri Jagdev Singh, Age 43 Years, R/o Ward No. 20, Tibbi, Hanumangarh 335526.

2. Jeet Singh S/o Shri Jagdev Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ward No. 20, Tibbi, Hanumangarh 335526.

3. Jagdev Singh S/o Shri Nand Singh, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Ward No. 20, Tibbi, Hanumangarh 335526.

4. Lakhwinder Singh S/o Shri Harchand Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Salemgarh Masani, Tibbi, Hanumangarh 335526.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The District Magistrate, Hanumangarh.

2. Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Through Its Authorized Officer, Branch Tibbi, Tehsil Tibbi, Regional Office, Rmgb, Rbo Hanumangarh Jn, Hanumangarh.

3. The Recovery Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Ms. Varsha Bissa
For Respondent(s)        :



                    JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                    Order

25/10/2021

1. By way of the present writ petition, petitioners have

challenged the order dated 08.07.2021, passed by District

Magsitrate, Hanumangarh, pursuant to an application filed by the

respondent - Bank under Section 14 of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Act of 2002').

(2 of 3) [CW-14765/2021]

2. Indisputably, against the notice under Section 13(4) of the

Act of 2002, petitioners have preferred an appeal before the Debt

Recovery Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), which is still pending

and by way of order dated 03.08.2021, the Tribunal has ordered

the parties to maintain status quo.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the order

dated 08.07.2021, passed by the District Magistrate under Section

14 of the Act of 2002 is contrary to facts and law involved in the

present case. She argued that the Bank cannot take-up two

simultaneous proceedings; one under Section 13(4) and another

under Section 14 of the Act of 2002.

4. In the opinion of this Court, proceedings under Section 14 of

the Act of 2002 are not separate proceedings and they are

proceedings incidental to take/secure possession of the secured

assets.

5. Since the petitioners' appeal is pending consideration before

the Tribunal, the petitioners' grievance, as raised in the present

writ petition, is required to be dealt with and considered by the

Tribunal in the appeal filed by the petitioners.

6. This Court does not find any reason to interfere in the

present writ petition, particularly when petitioners' appeal against

the basic action of the respondent-Bank is pending consideration

before the Tribunal. That apart, in light of judgment of the

Supreme Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon &

Ors. [(2010) 8 SCC 110] and Transcore Vs. Union of India & Ors.

[(2008) 8 SCC 15], this Court cannot exercise its power under

Article 226 of the Constitution in the matter arising from the Act of

2002.

(3 of 3) [CW-14765/2021]

7. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable.

8. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

297-skm/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)