Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Sadakat Hussain & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. & Anr. - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2728 of 2021
Decided On : 16-12-2021
SARFAESI Act - Loan Default - The court allowed the auction sale of secured assets but prohibited the confirmation of the sale until the appointment of the Presiding Officer in the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner defaulted on a loan taken from a cooperative bank, leading to proceedings for recovery of outstanding dues under SARFAESI Act. The petitioner challenged the sale notice due to the unavailability of the Presiding Officer in the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the petitioner's invocation of the Debts Recovery Tribunal's jurisdiction but noted the unavailability of the Presiding Officer, leading to the inability to obtain relief. As a result, the court allowed the auction sale of secured assets but prohibited the confirmation of the sale until the appointment of the Presiding Officer in the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Issues: Loan default, invocation of Debts Recovery Tribunal's jurisdiction, unavailability of Presiding Officer, auction sale of secured assets, confirmation of sale
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the petitioner's invocation of the Debts Recovery Tribunal's jurisdiction with the practical issue of the unavailability of the Presiding Officer, allowing the auction sale but prohibiting the confirmation of the sale until the appointment of the Presiding Officer.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, allowing the auction sale of secured assets but prohibiting the confirmation of the sale until the appointment of the Presiding Officer in the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. - Petitioner took a loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- from District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Branch Roorkee, District Haridwar in the year 2008. Since petitioner defaulted in repayment of loan, therefore, proceedings were initiated against them for recovery of the outstanding dues by invoking provisions contained in SARFAESI Act. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the sale notice dated 13.09.2021.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has already approached Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, however, due to vacancy on the post of Presiding Officer in Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, no order could be passed on petitioner's securitization application.
3. Learned Additional C.S.C. fairly submits that Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun is yet to be appointed, which may take some time.
4. Having regard to the fact that petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, however, on account of non-availability of Presiding Officer, he is unable to get any relief, therefore, it is provided that for a period of four weeks or till appointment of Presiding Officer in Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, whichever is earlier, the auction sale of the secured assets may go on, however, the sale shall not be confirmed.
5. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
6. Let a certified copy of this order be issued today itself.
AI
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
