WPMS/2696/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 5140 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                          AT NAINITAL
      ON THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
                                BEFORE:
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

        Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2696 of 2021
BETWEEN:
Sh. Rajvendra Singh Chauhan
and another                                                 ...Petitioners
      (By Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, Advocate)

AND:

Union Bank of India and others                             ...Respondents
      (By Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Mr.
      T.S.   Phartiyal,   Additional   Chief    Standing   Counsel   for   the
      State/respondent no.3.)

                            JUDGMENT

Petitioners took a loan from Union Bank of India, Branch Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2. Since petitioners defaulted in repayment of the loan, therefore, proceedings for recovery were initiated against him, under provision of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Petitioners had earlier approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (M/S) No. 114 of 2021, challenging the notice issued to them under Section 13 (2) of the aforesaid Act. The said writ petition was dismissed, on the ground of alternative remedy with liberty to the petitioners to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

3. In the present writ petition, it is contention of the petitioners that petitioners have

approached Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun under Section 17, challenging the possession notice issued under Rule 8 (1) of The Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and also the notice issued under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002. Since Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun is not functioning, on account of non- availability of Presiding Officer, therefore, petitioner has approached this Court for protection.

4. Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate appearing for respondent-Bank fairly submits that Office of Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun is vacant, since last two months, therefore, hearing is not taking place in the said tribunal.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to a limited protection, therefore, it is provided that for a period of four weeks or till appointment of Presiding Officer in Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.

6. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Shubham