Back
2021 Supreme(UK) 333
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
M/s Maa Store Products - Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2211 of 2021
Decided On : 25-10-2021
Mohit Kumar, Advocate, M.S. Bisht, Advocate
The availability of a remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 influenced the court's decision.
Headnote:
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Borrower - Recovery of Loan
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a borrower, defaulted in loan repayment, and the respondent bank initiated coercive measures for recovery under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Finding of the Court:
The court declined to entertain the writ petition as the petitioner had a remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The petitioner was given liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal within two weeks, and no coercive action was to be taken against the petitioner during this period.
Issues: Default in loan repayment, initiation of coercive measures for recovery, jurisdiction of the court to entertain the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the availability of a remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal within two weeks, and no coercive action was to be taken against the petitioner during this period.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. - Petitioner is a borrower, who had defaulted in repayment of loan. Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank/respondent no. 3 has initiated coercive measures for recovery of the outstanding loan amount against the petitioner in terms of the provisions contained in Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
2. Since petitioner has a remedy before Debts Recovery Tribunal, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner shall approach Debts Recovery Tribunal within two weeks’ and he further prays that till filing of the application before Debts Recovery Tribunal, some protection may be given to the petitioner.
4. Having regards to the facts and circumstance of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal within two weeks from today. For a period of two weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner.
