Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2734/2021 on 17 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2734 of 2021
BETWEEN:
M/s R.M. Enterprises through
its Partner ...Petitioner
(By Mr. Santosh Shukla, Advocate)
AND:
The Kurmanchal Nagar
Sahkari Bank Ltd
and another ...Respondents
(By Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for respondents)
JUDGMENT
Petitioner took a loan in the shape of Cash-
Credit Limit, amounting to ` 6 crore from Kurmanchal
Nagar Sahkari Bank Ltd., Branch Rudrapur, District
Udham Singh Nagar.
2. Since there has been a default on the part
of petitioner, in repayment of the loan, therefore, the
respondent-Bank has taken steps for recovery of the
outstanding amount by invoking provision of
SARFAESI Act, 2002.
3. By means of this writ petition, petitioner
has challenged the sale-notice dated 23.11.2021.
Perusal of the sale-notice reveals that the auction sale
of the secured asset is schedule to be held on
30.12.2021.
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner
that no notice under Rules 8 (6) and 9 (1) of the
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 has been
served upon the petitioner, therefore, sale-notice is
bad. He further submits that value of the property was
assessed by the Bank as ` 7.40 crore, in the year
2017, when loan was sanctioned, however, now value
of the same property is assessed as ` 4.40 crore,
which is less by ` 3 crore.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that as per the guidelines issued by Reserve
Bank of India, secured assets have to be sold through
E-auction, but in the present case physical auction is
scheduled to be held.
6. Learned counsel for the Bank submits that
petitioner has alternative remedy under Section 17 of
the SARFAESI Act, 2002, therefore, this writ petition
would not be maintainable. He further submits that
approved valuer have assessed realizable value of the
secured assets as ` 4.40 crore, therefore, grievance
raised by the petitioner regarding valuation of the
secured assets is without any substance. He further
submits that as per Rule 8 (5) of the Security Interest
(Enforcement) Rules, 2002, the secured assets can be
sold through E-auction as well as public auction.
7. There is no dispute that petitioner has a
statutory remedy under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act,
2002. It is also not in dispute that Debts Recovery
Tribunal, Dehradun is non-functional for want of
Presiding Officer.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank
submits that the Presiding Officer in the said Tribunal
is likely to be appointed within three weeks. He further
submits that as of now, the Debts Recovery Tribunal,
Lucknow has been authorized to hear the cases
cognizable by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun.
9. Since Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun is
lying vacant, therefore, petitioner cannot be left
remediless and he cannot be forced to approach Debts
Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow at this stage, when his
assets are going to be sold through public auction.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner would file securitization application
before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun positively
within two weeks. Therefore, it is provided that for a
period of four weeks or till disposal of interim relief
application filed by the petitioner before Debts
Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, whichever is earlier,
the sale of the secured asset, if made, shall not be
confirmed.
11. With the aforesaid direction, the writ
petition is disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Shubham
