Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
M/s Om Seeds Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
District Magistrate/collector, District Udham Singh Nagar Others - Respondent
Writ Petition No. (M/S) 2204 of 2021
Decided On : 12-11-2021
e-auction - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - The court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to submit a proposal for one-time settlement before the Competent Authority in the Bank.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners took a loan from Union Bank of India and were aggrieved by an e-auction notice for the sale of the secured asset. They had approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, but no order could be passed due to the expiration of the Presiding Officer's term.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to submit a proposal for one-time settlement before the Competent Authority in the Bank.
Issues: Aggrievement by e-auction notice, expiration of the Presiding Officer's term at the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and the petitioners' willingness to enter into a one-time settlement of the loan.
Ratio Decidendi: The court allowed the petitioners to submit a proposal for one-time settlement before the Competent Authority in the Bank, providing them with an opportunity to resolve the loan issue.
Final Decision: The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to submit a proposal for one-time settlement before the Competent Authority in the Bank.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. - Petitioners took a loan from Union Bank of India, Branch Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar. Petitioners are aggrieved by e-auction notice dated 18.09.2021 issued by Authorized Officer of the bank, whereby the immovable secured asset mortgaged with the bank, has been offered for sale through e-auction to be held on 22.10.2021.
2. Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel appearing for the Bank has apprised the Court that on the date fixed for e-auction, not a single offer was received, and now a fresh e-auction notice would be published for e-auction of the secured assets.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners had approached Debts Recovery Tribunal against the demand notice and possession notice issued by the Bank in exercise of powers under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. He, however, points out that since the term of Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun has expired and new incumbent has not been appointed, therefore, no order could be passed on petitioners’ securitization application.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are ready & willing to enter into one time settlement of the loan with the Bank. He, therefore, submits that petitioners may be permitted to submit a proposal for one time settlement of the loan and the Competent Authority in the Bank be directed to consider petitioners’ proposal.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank assures the Court that if petitioners submit proposal for one time settlement, the Competent Authority in the Bank shall consider the same and take appropriate decision at the earliest.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioners to submit a proposal for one time settlement before the Competent Authority in the Bank. If petitioners submit such proposal within ten days from today, the Competent Authority in the Bank shall consider petitioners’ proposal and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within four weeks thereafter.
7. Let a certified copy of this order be issued today itself.
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
