The right of redemption under the Securitisation Act ceases upon auction notice publication, but the Debt Recovery Tribunal can still adjudicate borrower grievances.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.-Heard Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri J.S. Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjai Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. In the light of proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

3. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has approached this Court challenging notice dated 1.8.2024, which has been issued in pursuance to order dated 30.7.2024, passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad whereby he has been impleaded in the proceedings pending before the Tribunal.

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act, 2002''), initiated by the respondent-Bank against borrower namely respondent No. 3 as well as guarantor respondent No. 4 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'') under the Act, 2002. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 moved securitisation application before the Tribunal assailing the proceedings under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, 2002 initiated by the respondent-Bank, who by that time has taken possession of the secured assets.

5. Before the Tribunal, while the proceedings were pending, the respondent-Bank has put the secured assets to auction and it is the petitioner who, in pursuance of the said auction was the successful bidder and auction was settled in his favour and sale-deed was also registered in his favour on 18.3.2023. When respondent Nos. 3 and 4 came to know about the auction of secured assets by the Bank, they moved an application in the pending securitisation application numbered as Securitisation Application No. 577 of 2021, seeking relief from the Tribunal for setting aside the sale notice dated 30.10.2021 and also assailed the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent-Bank under the Act, 2002. They have also challenged the notice issued under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act, 2002.

6. Before the Tribunal, it was submitted by the borrower as well as guarantor that dispute has occurred as certain benefits were granted by the State Government in respect to the loan, where Rs. 7,00,000/- was deposited directly to the Bank, but the Bank failed to credit the said amount in the loan account of the borrower and consequently, were aggrieved by the excess amount sought to be recovered by the respondent-Bank. According to the borrower the dispute was also settled before the Lok Adalat where the respondent-Bank had agreed to receive an amount of Rs. 8,25,000/- against entire loan taken by the borrower and in pursuance to the settlement an amount of Rs. 1,65,000/- was also deposited by the borrower with the respondent-Bank.

7. It is further alleged before the Tribunal that remaining amount can be deposited the respondent-Bank had illegally and arbitrarily issued auction notice and sold the secured assets for Rs. 18,00,000/- while it was the allegation that secured assets were worth more than Rs. 1.5Crore.

8. When the borrower has obtained knowledge with regard to the auction being settled in favour of petitioner, he tried to obtain details, but the respondent-Bank did not cooperate and details were not supplied and when he found out the details of the petitioner he moved an application for impleadment stating that petitioner was necessary party inasmuch as the secured assets have been auctioned in his favour and hence he was necessary party to the proceedings. It is on hearing respondent Nos. 3 and 4 that the Tribunal has allowed the application for impleadment and also issued notice to appear and file his response. It is against the said order passed by the Tribunal dated 30.7.2024 and 1.8.25024 the petitioner feeling aggrieved has filed the present writ petition.

9. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that once the secured assets have been auc