WPMS/169/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 444 UK

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                    AT NAINITAL
     ON THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
                          BEFORE:
 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI


      Writ Petition (M/S) No. 169 of 2022


BETWEEN:
M/s S.K. Tempo Corporation & others. ..Petitioner
      (By Mr. Subham Chhabra & Rohit Arora, Advocates)


AND:
Union Bank of India.                           ...Respondent
      (By Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate)



                       JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioners are borrowers, who are facing recovery proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. In this writ petition, petitioners have challenged an e-auction notice in respect of the secured asset, which was to be held on 22.10.2021.

3. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that petitioners have already approached Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, by filing Securitization Application No. 134 of 2021, but, on account of vacancy on the post of Presiding Officer, no order could be passed on their application.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent- bank was asked to get instructions in the matter.

Today, on instructions, he submits that commercial property, which was mortgaged by petitioners with the bank, has been sold in e- auction, held on 22.10.2021. He, however, submits that since no bids were received in respect of the residential property, mortgaged by petitioners with the respondent-bank, therefore, residential property is yet to be sold.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since petitioners' Securitization Application is pending before Debts Recovery Tribunal and Debts Recovery Tribunal is lying vacant since long, therefore, petitioners are entitled for a limited protection, till appointment of Presiding Officer.

6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by providing that for a period of six weeks or till appointment of Presiding Officer in Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, whichever is earlier, sale of residential property of the petitioner, mortgaged with the bank, if any, shall not be confirmed and status quo, qua possession thereof, shall be maintained for the aforesaid period.

7. It is made clear that Debts Recovery Tribunal will take a decision on Securitization Application of the petitioners on merits, untrammelled by any observation made in this order.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Navin