WPMS/2720/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 5194 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                       AT NAINITAL
      ON THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
                              BEFORE:
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


       Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2720 of 2021


BETWEEN:
Azeema Begum & others.                                    ...Petitioners
      (By Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, Advocate)

AND:

Authorized Officer, Punjab National
Bank & others.                                           ...Respondents
      (There is no representation for the respondents)


                           JUDGMENT

Petitioners are residents of District Moradabad in State of Uttar Pradesh. They took a loan from Punjab National Bank, Thakurdwara Branch, District Moradabad.

2. Since petitioners could not repay the loan in time, therefore, recovery proceedings were initiated by the concerned bank by invoking provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

3. According to the petitioners, the secured asset has now been sold by the respondent-bank in a public auction. It is further the contention of the petitioners that they have approached Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun under Section 17 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, but, on account of non-availability of Presiding Officer, no relief could be obtained by the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have approached Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun for redressal of their grievance and since Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun is not functioning, therefore, the present writ petition is maintainable before this Court.

5. I am not inclined to accept the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners for the reason that no part of cause of action arose within jurisdiction of this Court and entire cause of action arose in State of Uttar Pradesh. The secured asset is within the State of U.P.; the lending bank is situate in State of U.P. & petitioners are also residents of State of U.P. If petitioners were challenging some order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, then certainly this Court could have exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, which extends to all Courts and Tribunals within the State.

6. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction with liberty to petitioners to approach the appropriate forum.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Navin