WPMS/2116/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 5255 UK

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                          AT NAINITAL
          ON THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
                              BEFORE:
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


         WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 2116 of 2021

     BETWEEN:

     Sahota Seeds Ltd. Village
     Narayanpur, Kashipur                          .......Petitioner

     AND:
     Punjab National Bank,
     Mid Corporate Center and another           ....Respondents


                        with
         WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 2117 of 2021

     (By Mr. Atul Kumar Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr.
     Ashish Joshi, Advocate for respondents)

                             JUDGMENT

Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these writ petitions, therefore, these petitions are clubbed together and are being heard & decided together. However, for the sake of convenience, facts of WPMS No. 2116 of 2021 are being considered.

2. Petitioner is a borrower, who is facing proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002 for alleged default in repayment of loan. Petitioner has challenged the notice issued to him under Section 13 (2) and also the order passed on their representation under Section 13 (3A) of SARFAESI Act, 2002.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that a notice has now been issued under Rule 8 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 r/w Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002. He further submits that petitioner has a remedy under Section 17 of the Act.

4. Petitioners' counsel points out that the lending Bank has issued notice for e-auction of the secured assets under Rule 9 (1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.

5. Regarding preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent-Bank, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun is not functioning these days, on account of vacancy on the post of Presiding Officer. He submits that petitioner will file securitization application before learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun within two weeks and he further prays that protection be given to the petitioner, till the Securitization Application is heard by Debts Recovery Tribunal.

6. Having regard to the fact that Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun is not able to function, due to non- availability of Presiding Officer, it is provided that for a period of four weeks or till disposal of interim relief application filed with petitioners' securitization application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners.

7. It goes without saying that Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun shall decide the matter on merits untrammelled by any observation made in this order. It shall be open to petitioner to raise all contentions available to him, in law.

8. The writ petitions are, accordingly, disposed of.

9. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the parties within 24 hours.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Shubham