WPMS/2851/2021
2022 Latest Caselaw 94 UK

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                         AT NAINITAL
       ON THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
                             BEFORE:
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

       Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2851 of 2021
BETWEEN:
Gopal Singh Bisht                                           ...Petitioner
      (By Mr. Sanjay Gaur, Advocate)

AND:

Bank of Baroda and others                              ...Respondents
      (By Mr. Sumit Bajaj, Advocate for respondent no.1.)


                           JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the parties through Video Conferencing.

2. Petitioner is facing recovery proceedings under provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002.

3. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

"(a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent bank/competent authority to redeliver/restore possession of the mortgaged property of the petitioner in question to the petitioner forthwith or to mould the relief appropriately keeping in view the facts highlighted in the body of petition.

(b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No.1 Bank to consider the Settlement/regularization letter dated 20-07-21 & grant time of two years to liquidate the loan amount in instalments. (contained in Annexure No.12)

(c) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No.1 Bank not to sell the property in question by granting status quo during pendency of Securitisation

Application No. 97 of 2020 before the Learned Debts Recovery Tribunal at Dehradun."

4. It is not in dispute that petitioner has approached Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun by filing S.A. No. 97 of 2020 and on 05.07.2021, a conditional interim order was passed by learned Tribunal in favour of petitioner that if he deposits ` 4,00,000/- within 30 days and another ` 6,00,000/- within next 30 days, than the respondent Bank will not take possession of the property in question.

5. Petitioner contends that he fulfilled the condition imposed in the said interim order and he deposited a sum of ` 10,00,000/- with the Bank within stipulated time of 60 days.

6. This fact however has been disputed by learned counsel appearing for the Bank, who submits that petitioner has violated the condition imposed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun. He further submitted that one of the cheques submitted by petitioner was dishonoured and subsequently the amount of cheque was electronically transferred by petitioner after expiry of deadline fixed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun.

7. Petitioner is aggrieved by the action of lending Bank of taking possession of the secured assets, which according to him is in violation of the interim order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun.

8. Admittedly, petitioner's securitization application is pending before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, however, on account of non- availability of Presiding Officer, petitioner's securitization application could not be heard. The issues raised by the petitioner can be adjudicated in his securitization application.

9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to approach the Competent Authority in the lending Bank by making a representation for regularizing his loan account. If petitioner makes such representation within one week from today, the Competent Authority shall consider petitioner's request and take appropriate decision, as per law, within one week thereafter. For a period of two weeks or till decision is taken on petitioner's representation, whichever is earlier, auction sale of petitioner's secured asset, if made, shall not be confirmed.

(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.) Shubham