Monika vs District Magistrate & Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

By means of this petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.05.2024 passed by respondent no.1 on the application No.96/2024 filed by respondent no.2 before respondent no.1 (Annexure No.9), whereby, the respondent no.1-District Magistrate, Haridwar, in exercise of powers vested in it u/s 14(1)(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (to be referred to as ‘the Act’) has directed to take possession of the ‘secured asset’ through a nominated Magistrate/ Tehsildar (respondent no.7 herein).

It is contended by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner purchased the secured asset by way of a sale deed only after the original owner repaid the entire bank dues. However, the fact of the matter is that the original owner had borrowed another loan as against the said property from respondent no.2-Central Bank of India.

Moreover, having regard to the facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the remedy available to the petitioner lies only in the Debts Recovery Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 by moving an appropriate application u/s 17 of the Act of 2002, more particularly, after the amendment was incorporated in Section 17 of the said Act w.e.f. 01.09.2016, where she can raise all these factual issues.

The petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.