Kailashchandra vs Branch Manager And Others

Sujoy Paul, J

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he had taken a loan of Rs.17,60,000/- from the respondent/Bank on 16.02.2016. He has repaid an amount of about Rs.7,77,000/- till now but due to poor financial condition he could not be regular in the matter of payment of installments. The respondent/Bank hence appears to have initiated recovery proceedings under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (which shall be referred hereinafter as 'the Act, 2002') against the property of the petitioner.

02 . In those proceedings notice under Section 13(2) and 13(4) was allegedly issued to the petitioner but the same has never been served upon him. It is submitted that the respondent/Bank has published auction notice in the daily newspaper of Ujjain on 29.09.2021 for auction of the property of the petitioner. The petitioner has approached the bank by letter dated 28.10.2021 praying for grant of time to him for repayment of the loan but the said letter has not been entertained by the respondent/Bank which is going ahead with the auction of the property of the petitioner. It is hence submitted that petitioner is under threat of forcible dispossession hence has approached this Court.

03 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Debt Recovery Tribunal of M.P. at present is not functional. The petitioner has a fundamental right of seeking judicial review of an order which may have any adverse consequences against him. However, it is seen that the petitioner has not yet approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur to challenge the action of the respondent/Bank.

We are told that DRT is not functional in Madhya Pradesh. The litigant cannot be left remedy-less. In the facts and circumstances of the case we deem it fit to dispose off this petition by directing the petitioner to challenge the action of respondent/bank by instituting appropriate proceedings before DRT along with a prayer for interim relief within a period of ten days from today. In case such proceedings along with prayer for interim relief are filed by the petitioner within the aforesaid period of ten days, we direct the DRT to take up the said proceedings and the prayer for interim relief soon it becomes functional and take a decision on the prayer for interim relief in accordance with law expeditiously. It shall be the duty of the petitioner to communicate this order to the respondents and to the Registry of DRT within seven working days from today, failing which interim protection shall cease to operate automatically.

In case appropriate proceedings along with prayer for interim relief are preferred by the petitioner before the DRT within a period of ten days as stipulated above, then in that case till the prayer for interim relief of the petitioner is decided by the Tribunal, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner and status-quo with regard to the property in question shall be maintained.

With the aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on merits, the petition is disposed of.

C.c. as per rules.