WPMS/2736/2021
2022 Latest Caselaw 248 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                        AT NAINITAL
      ON THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
                              BEFORE:
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

       Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2736 of 2021
BETWEEN:
Mukesh Agarwal and others                                 ...Petitioners
      (By Mr. Ravi Bisht, Advocate)

AND:

Punjab National Bank through
its Managing Director and Others                        ...Respondents
      (By Mr. Siddharth Jain, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 5)


                           JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties through Video Conferencing.

2. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 17.12.2021 and protection against coercive action was granted to the petitioners for a period of four weeks or till appointment of Presiding Officer in Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, whichever is earlier.

3. Today, the matter is listed on time extension application.

4. In para no.6 of the affidavit filed in support of time extension application, it is stated that Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow was given additional charge of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun only for 15 days till

31.12.2021 and petitioner's counsel has referred to Annexure No.2 to the time extension application, perusal whereof indicates that the Presiding Officer, Lucknow held Court of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun on Friday only.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to aforesaid reason the Securitization Application No. 863 of 2021 filed by the petitioner in the year 2021 is yet to be considered. He then prays that protection granted vide order dated 17.12.2021 be extended for four weeks from today.

6.        Learned       counsel           appearing        for
respondent-Bank     fairly         submits       that    after

31.12.2021, the charge of Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun has not been given to any person. He further submits that since no order prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners has been passed, therefore, there is no need of extension of protection granted to the petitioners vide order dated 17.12.2021.

7. Perusal of the order dated 17.12.2021 reveals that this Court had granted protection to the petitioners due to non-availability of Presiding Officer in Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, but the situation remains the same, therefore, this Court thinks that the protection granted to the petitioner vide order dated 17.12.2021 deserves to be extended.

8. Accordingly, Time Extension Application (M.C.C. No 2 of 2022) is allowed. Protection granted to the petitioner from coercive action at the hands of the respondent-Bank is extended up to 10.03.2022 or till appointment of Presiding Officer, whichever is earlier.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Shubham