The petitioner's inability to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) due to the ongoing lockdown for COVID-19 was not a valid ground for seeking relief from the Court.

JUDGMENT

N.K. Sudhindrarao, J. - This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein the petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned Notice dated 10.02.2020 (Annexure-C) issued by the respondent No.1 Bank.

2. The substance of the petition is that on 27.06.2019 the 1st respondent M/s. Bank of Baroda Erstwhile M/s. Vijaya Bank, issued a Demand Notice under Section 13(2) read with rule 3 of Security Interest (Enforcement Rule) 2002 for recovery of Rs.4,92,22,143.70. On 14.10.2019 the 1st respondent filed Crl. Misc. No.4798/2019 in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bengaluru for taking physical possession of the property and on 07.11.2019 the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bengaluru passed an order to obtain possession of the property based on the memo filed by the respondents. On 10.02.2020 the 1st respondent issued notice of sale of immovable property to the borrower under Rule 8(5) and 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement Rules) 2002 and stated in the notice that, the outstanding balance is Rs.4,04,10,588.75. The petitioner submits that, though the law mandates him to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), but the Tribunal is not functioning due to on going lockdown for COVID-19 therefore, he is compelled to approach this Court.

3. The main crux of the submission is that the petitioner - Nisargalaya Drug Unit Pvt. Ltd., has obtained financial assistance from respondent No.1 by mortgaging the residential property bearing Nos. 9 and 10 Fortune Valley, Mariamanapalya, H.A. Pharma Post, near Limbini Garden, Bengaluru-560 024, which is consisting of 10,000 square feet which also consists of residential site with a house constructed with around 2520 square feet. The borrowing of loan by the petitioner from the 1st respondent is not in dispute, nor the exhibition of document in favour of the Bank for creating the mortgage of the property stated above. The issue of notice dated 31.05.2019 Annexure-A is admitted. Further, filing of Criminal Misc. No.4798/2019 dated 14.10.2019 is also not in dispute and the order passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate dated 07.11.2019 produced Annexure-B is also not in dispute.

4. Learned counsel Sri Diwakara K., for the petitioner would submit that the order dated 07.11.2019 is not in accordance with law, wherein the possession is ordered to be handed over to the Commission. It is submitted that it is against law.

5. Sri K.V. Lokesh, learned counsel appearing for Bank of Baroda would submit that the Bank has taken the physical possession of the property on 12.11.2019. He would further submit that the copy of the document was served only on Saturday and hence, he could not file the statement in writing. However, the very respondent No.1 represented by the learned counsel has gone on record submitting that the physical possession of the schedule property is already taken.

6. It is in respect of a mortgaged loan for the amount of Rs.4,92,22,143.70. Executing of mortgage, liability default are admitted.

7. Section 14 of the Securitization And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 reads as under:

"14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset.-

(1) Where the possession of any secured asset is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured assets is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured asset, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him-