Uttarakhand High Court
CLCON/221/2019 on 1 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Contempt Petition No. 221 of 2019
BETWEEN:
M/s Naveen Kisan
Rice Mill & others. .....Petitioners
(By Mr. Ravi Bisht, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Atul
Kumar Bansal, Advocate)
AND:
Mr. Satendra Pal singh. ...Respondent
(By Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
Petitioner took a loan from Nainital Bank Ltd.
Since petitioner defaulted in repayment of the loan,
therefore, proceedings for recovery of the outstanding
amount were initiated against him under provisions of
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. Petitioner filed Writ Petition (M/S) No. 173 of
2018 challenging the order passed by Additional District
Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar under Section 14 of
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets
and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, on the
ground that only District Magistrate is competent to
pass such order. The said writ petition was allowed by
Writ Court, vide judgment dated 28.09.2018.
Operative portion of the judgment dated 28.09.2018 is
extracted below:-
"32. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds. The
notice dated 09.10.2017 (Annexure No. 8 to the writ
petition) and the order dated 15.01.2018 (Annexure
No. 10 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed and
set aside. The net result would be that all actions
which have been taken by the bank subsequent to
the order dated 15.01.2018 are nullity. The property
be restored to its position as it was before passing of
the impugned order dated 15.01.2018. It is,
however, made clear that this order shall not restrict
the District Magistrate to pass fresh order in
accordance with law."
3. Nainital Bank Ltd. challenged the judgment
rendered by Writ Court by filing Special Appeal No. 901
of 2018. Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment
dated 10.01.2019, partly allowed the Special Appeal
filed by the petitioner. Relevant extract of the said
judgment is reproduced below:-
"As the respondent-writ petitioner has not subjected
the auction proceedings to challenge, the order of the
learned Single Judge, to the extent such proceedings
have also been declared a nullity, is set aside. We
may not be understood to have affirmed the action of
the appellant-Bank in putting the subject property to
auction. All that we have held is that, in the absence
of a challenge thereto by the respondent-writ
petitioner, the said proceedings could not have been
declared a nullity. We make it clear that the order,
now passed by us, shall not disable the respondent-
writ petitioner from questioning the said auction
proceedings in appropriate legal proceedings and, in
case a challenge is mounted thereto, the competent
court/Tribunal shall examine the contentions urged
on its merits, uninfluenced by any observation made
in this order."
4. It is the stand taken by the respondent in
paragraph no. 6 of the response affidavit that the
property, which was subject matter of proceedings
under Section 13(4) and Section 14 of SARFAESI Act
belongs to the guarantor, namely, Gurmej Singh and
petitioner had no right, title or interest over the said
property. In paragraph no. 7 of the affidavit, it has
been stated that before passing of the judgment, the
secured assets belonging to the guarantor was
auctioned and auction sale was not set aside by this
Court and only liberty was given to the petitioner to
challenge the auction sale before the appropriate
forum. In paragraph no. 8 of the affidavit, it has been
stated that petitioner had filed a Securitization
Application being S.A. No. 18 of 2019 before Debts
Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun for setting-aside the sale.
5. Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent has produced in Court the
judgment dated 06.02.2020 rendered by Debts
Recovery Tribunal in S.A. No. 18 of 2019 filed by the
petitioner, which is taken on record. From perusal of
the judgment, it reveals that Debts Recovery Tribunal
refused to interfere with the auction sale of the secured
assets of the guarantor and, accordingly, the
Securitization Application filed by the petitioner was
dismissed.
6. It is the contention of the petitioner that
since possession of the secured assets was not given
back to the petitioner, therefore, it amounts to willful
disobedience of the order passed by this Court.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
no case for proceeding under provisions of Contempt of
Courts Act, is made out against the respondent.
8. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is
dismissed. Contempt notice issued to the respondent is
hereby discharged.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Navin
