M/S Channel Motors And Another ... vs Bank Of Baroda And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 297 UK

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

             Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 229 of 2023


M/S Channel Motors and Another              ...... Petitioners

                                Vs.

Bank of Baroda and Others                  ..... Respondents

Presents:-
Mr. B.D. Pande and Mr. Pulak Agarwal, Advocates for the
petitioners.
Mr. Siddharth Jain, Advocate for the respondent no.1.
Mr. Ravi Bisht, Advocate for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4.


                           JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to a

notice dated 11.12.2022, issued by an authorised officer

of Bank of Baroda for auctioning certain properties of

the petitioners under the provisions of the Securitisation

and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement

of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("the Act").

2. Heard learned counsel for the respondent

no.1 through video conferencing and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would

submit that it is admitted that the petitioners have made

default in payment of the loan, which they had taken,

but, it is argued that post issuance of the notice under

Section 13 (4) of the Act, the Bank had conveyed it to the

petitioners that the due is about Rs. 3 crores 45 lakhs. It

is argued that the petitioners have already paid Rs. 1.6

crores to the respondent no.1 bank and the petitioners

are ready to pay the remaining amount but the

respondent no.1 bank is not ready to accept that

amount. It is argued that the respondent no.1 bank be

directed to take the dues from the petitioners.

4. An action taken under Section 13(4) of the

Act may be challenged under Section 17 of the Act. The

Act itself makes a complete procedure. The Act has been

enacted to regulate securitisation and reconstruction of

financial assets and enforcement of security interest and

to provide for a Central database of security interests

created on property rights, and for matters connected

therewith or incidental thereto.

5. It is a writ petition. It is the case of the

petitioner himself that the amount, which he had taken

as loan in the year 2009, had become non-performing

asset. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had paid

what was due from him. In fact, the notice was for

auction on 11.01.2023. That date has also expired.

Admittedly, the petitioners have not paid the entire due.

If the petitioners have any grievance from any inaction of

the respondent no.1 bank, they may very well approach

the authority as provided under Section 17 of the Act.

6. This Court does not find it appropriate to

make any indulgence in this petition at this stage.

Accordingly, it deserves to be dismissed at the stage of

admission itself.

7. The petition is dismissed in limine.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) Vacation Judge 17.01.2023 Ravi Bisht