Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/249/2022 on 16 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 249 of 2022
BETWEEN:
M/s Sudershan Ferrolloys &
Bars Ltd. and Another ...Petitioners
(By Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate)
AND:
Indian Bank, Stressed Assets
Management Branch & Others ...Respondents
(By Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2)
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties
through Video Conferencing.
2. By means of this writ petition,
petitioners have sought the following reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ order in the nature of
certiorari to quash the order dated 10-
01-2022 passed by respondent no 1 and
Auction Confirmation order dated 31-1-
2022 issued by respondent no 1
(Contained as annexure no 5 & 6 to the
writ petition respectively).
II. To issue writ or direction to call for the
records of the e auction alleged to be
held on 30-12-2022 by respondent no 1
and 2."
3. Earlier petitioners had filed Writ Petition
(M/S) No. 2880 of 2021, which was disposed of
vide order dated 30.12.2021. The order dated
30.12.2021 is reproduced below for ready
reference:-
"Petitioners are borrower against whom recovery
proceedings have been initiated by invoking provisions of
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have
challenged the sale notice issued under Rule 6(2) & 8(6) of the
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
3. Mr. Ajay Singh Bisht, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no. 2 submits that the lending bank had filed O.A. No.
44 of 2018 and claim of the bank was decreed. He further submits
that despite the said judgment, petitioners have failed to repay the
loan.2
4. Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners submits that petitioners are ready and willing to
settle the dispute, but they want opportunity to approach the
Competent Authority in the bank.
5. Having regard to the willingness showing by the
petitioner to settle the dispute, they are permitted to approach the
Competent Authority in the bank by making representation on or
before 05.1.2022. If petitioners make such representation, the
Competent Authority in the bank shall consider petitioners' request
and take appropriate decision, as per law, within one week
thereafter.
6. Till 12.01.2022 or till decision on petitioners'
representation, whichever is earlier, auction sale of the secured
asset of the petitioners, if made, shall not be confirmed.
7. Let a certified copy of this order be issued today
itself."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that pursuant to the order passed in Writ
Petition (M/S) No. 2880 of 2021, petitioners made
a representation, which was rejected by the
Competent Authority in the Bank on 10.01.2022.
5. Learned counsel for the Bank submits
that after rejection of petitioners' representation,
respondent no.3 was declared as the highest
bidder and sale certificate was issued in his favour
on 24.01.2022 and possession of the secured
asset was also handed-over to respondent no.3 on
the same day.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners
however submits that auction sale of the secured
asset was made illegally, inasmuch as in the
auction process only one bidder had participated
and moreover, secured asset has been sold in
violation of order passed by this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-
Bank however disputed this submission made by
learned counsel for the petitioners.
8. Be that as it may, the relief as claimed
by petitioners can be granted by Debt Recovery
Tribunal under Section 17 SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Petitioners have challenged the order dated
10.01.2022 whereby their proposal for One Time
Settlement has been rejected. They have also
challenged the order dated 13.01.2022, whereby
respondent no.3 was informed by the Bank that he
is the highest bidder with direction to deposit 25%
of the bid amount on or before 14.01.2022 and to
deposit the balance amount within 15 days i.e. on
or before 28.01.2022. In view of availability of
alternative remedy to the petitioners, this Court is
not inclined to entertain this Writ Petition.
9. Since the auction sale has been
confirmed, therefore, prayer made by learned
counsel for petitioners for restoration of
possession of the secured asset to the petitioners
also cannot be granted.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed with liberty to petitioners to approach
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun under Section
17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002. It shall be open to the
petitioners to raise all contentions before the
Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Shubham
