WPMS/341/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 391 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
           AT NAINITAL
       ON THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
                    BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
     WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 341 of 2022

BETWEEN:
Rani Sharma                                  ... Petitioner
       (Mr. B.D. Pande and Mr. Rakshit Joshi, Advocates)

AND:
State of Uttarakhand & another               ... Respondents
       (Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State of
       Uttarakhand and Mr. Chandramauli Shah, learned counsel for
       the respondent bank)

                         JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner and her husband jointly took a housing loan from Indian Overseas Bank, Branch Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Since petitioner defaulted in repayment of loan, therefore, respondent bank has initiated recovery proceeding by invoking provision of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short "SARFAESI Act"). Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought following relief:-

i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the e-auction sale notice dated 05.02.2022 issued by the Respondent No. 2 for sale of the Petitioner's property bearing Khasra No. 201A min. situated in Village Neejhra Tehsil Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar belonging to the petitioner which is in her possession along with its effect and operation.

ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to fix entire amount in simple installments keeping in view the financial condition of the petitioner.

3. Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since Debt Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun is not functioning due to non- availability of Presiding Officer, therefore, petitioner is unable to seek the remedy provided under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act.

4. Mr. Chandramauli Shah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that the loan account has become overdue by a little more than `3.00 lakh, and if petitioner deposits the said amount, the respondent bank will consider her request for regularizing the loan account.

5. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority in the bank by making representation to regularize the loan account. If such representation is made by petitioner, along with overdue amount, within two weeks from today, the Competent Authority in the bank shall consider the request of the petitioner, as per law, within two weeks from the date of production of such representation. Till decision on petitioner's representation, proceedings for auction sale of the secured asset may go on, however, sale, if made, shall not be confirmed.

6. It is made clear that in case petitioner fails to make representation, along with overdue amount, within stipulated time, she shall not be entitled to protection of this order and respondent Bank will be free to proceed in the matter, in accordance with law.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Aswal