SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(UK) 366

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Brij Mohan Pandey - Appellant
Versus
District Magistrate, District Udham Singh Nagar & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2777 of 2021
Decided On : 27-12-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Bharat Singh, Advocate, M.S. Bisht, Advocate, Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to provide limited protection to a borrower from auction-sale of secured assets under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, in cases where the borrower is unable to obtain relief due to non-availability of the Presiding Officer in the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Headnote:

SARFAESI Act - Protection from Auction - The court provided limited protection to the petitioner from auction-sale of secured assets for a period of four weeks or until the consideration of petitioner's interim relief application by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, due to non-availability of Presiding Officer in the Tribunal.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a borrower, challenged the possession notice issued by the lending Bank under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002, citing non-availability of Presiding Officer in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that due to the non-availability of the Presiding Officer in the Tribunal, the petitioner was unable to obtain relief under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and thus, provided limited protection from auction-sale of secured assets for a specified period.

Issues: Non-availability of Presiding Officer in the Debts Recovery Tribunal, petitioner's entitlement to protection, and the scheduled auction-sale of secured assets.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the non-availability of the Presiding Officer in the Tribunal, the petitioner's inability to obtain relief under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and the scheduled auction-sale of secured assets.

Final Decision: The court provided limited protection to the petitioner from auction-sale of secured assets for a period of four weeks or until the consideration of petitioner's interim relief application by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. - Petitioner is a borrower against whom proceedings have been initiated by the lending Bank under SARFAESI Act, 2002. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the possession notice issued on 31.07.2021, under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to non-availability of Presiding Officer in Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, remedy under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 has become illusory. He further submits that in view of peculiar circumstances of the case, petitioner is entitled for protection till he obtains relief from the forum made available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Petitioner's counsel assures that petitioner shall file securitization application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the appropriate forum, within two weeks.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank admits that Debts Recovery Tribunal at Dehradun is presently vacant and appointment of new Presiding Officer is possible within three weeks. He, however, submits that the secured assets have now been put up for public auction, which is scheduled to be held on 11.01.2022. He further apprised the Court that total outstanding amount against the petitioner as on 31.07.2021 is more than Rs. 4.39 crores.

4. In view of non-availability of Presiding Officer in Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, petitioner is not able to get desired relief from the forum provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Thus, the matter calls for an interference and petitioner is entitled to a limited protection for a period of four weeks or till disposal of his interim relief application by the Tribunal.

5. Accordingly, it is provided that for a period of four weeks or till consideration of petitioner's interim relief application by Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is earlier, the auction-sale of the secured assets, if made, shall not be confirmed.

6. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition stands disposed of.

7. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the parties within 24 hours.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top