JUDGMENT

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Jeewan, J. - CWP-9252-2022 (O&M)

The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside of the sale conducted by the respondent Bank on 06.01.2021 and further seeking a direction to the respondent Bank to accept the amount under the 'Rinn Samadhan Scheme' 2020-21.

2. As per the averments made in the petition, petitioner No. 1 has availed a loan from the respondent Bank on 07.02.2006 and the house in question was mortgaged with the Bank. As per the written reply filed by the respondent-Bank, the account of the petitioner was declared as NPA on 10.05.2014. The proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act') were initiated. As per the contents of the reply of the Bank dated 12.01.2021 (Annexure P-4), the physical possession of the property was taken on 09.02.2019. The petitioner approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh (for short 'the Tribunal') challenging the sale dated 06.01.2021 which was held under the provisions of the Act by way of filing SA No. 23 of 2019 (Annexure P-13). As such, the present petition is not maintainable, as the alternative remedy has to be availed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 1 wants to save his only residential house which was already sold in auction and further submitted that the petitioner is willing to pay the entire outstanding amount, if an opportunity granted to him.

4. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. As per the paper-book, the petitioner had approached the Tribunal by way of filing SA No. 23 of 2021 raising a challenge to the sale of the mortgaged house, which took place in e-auction for a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/-. As per the order dated 18.02.2021 (Annexure P-8) the Tribunal passed an interim order granting status quo regarding the mortgaged property and directed the petitioner to approach the Bank and deposit the entire outstanding amount along with expenses within a period of 03 days. The paper-book further goes on to show that the petitioner filed an application dated 18.02.2021 (Annexure P-9) before the Bank and requested to deposit the entire outstanding amount after deducting the penal interest. As per the order dated 06.09.2021 (Annexure P-13), the Tribunal observed that there was a dispute regarding the remaining outstanding of Rs.7,35,016/- even though the petitioner had approached the Bank along with the demand draft of Rs.6,65,282/. The petitioner was again given liberty to approach the Bank to deposit the said remaining amount. Ultimately, the said SA was dismissed by the Tribunal by passing the order dated 21.04.2022 (Annexure P-14) holding that no ground is made out to allow the application. The relevant part reads as under:-

"7. I have considered the rival contentions.

8. The question which arises for consideration is, 'whether the applicants are entitled to get the sale set aside even after the sale certificate has been issued and it has been registered?

9. As per Section 13 (8) of the Securitization Act, in case, the debtor tenders the dues along with costs, charges and expenses of the secured creditor at any time before the date of publication of notice, then the secured creditor will not transfer the property. In the case in hand, even till today the amount has not been tendered. The loan was taken in the year 2006. Even after 16 years a sum of Rs. 12,59,108/- is due.

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shakeena's case (supra) after relying upon Dwarika P