M/s Avantika Bar And Restaurant And Another vs Canera Bank

Ravindra Maithani, J

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following relief:-

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned notice dated 08.01.2025, issued by the respondent no.1 to the extent of sale the property under e-Auction and further the impugned publication notice dated 27.02.2025 whereby scheduled the date of e-auction (contained as Annexure no.5 and 6 to this writ petition).

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.1 to permit the petitioners to deposit actual outstanding dues in equal instalments.

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.2, not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned notices dated 08.01.2025 and 27.02.2025.

(iv) Pass such other or further orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(v) Award the cost of petition to the petitioners.

, on the ground that the matter is pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (“the DRT”).

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is the case of the petitioners that he opened a Cash Credit Limit of Rs. 19 Lakhs from the respondent-Bank for running M/s Avantika Bar and Restaurant. The petitioner repaid the instalments, but, subsequently, he could not deposit the instalments, as the Bar licence was cancelled. Thereafter, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“the SARFAESI Act”) were taken against the petitioner. The property has already been taken into possession and it is put to e-Auction, which was scheduled yesterday.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay the 40 per cent of the amount due within a month and he would pay the remaining amount within three months.

On enquiry, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that yesterday, e-Auction could not take place.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank would submit that yesterday, in e-Auction, no bid was received; now at least one month time may be taken to further notify the e-Auction.

It is a proceeding under the SARFAESI Act, which is a self contained code. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any authority under the SARFAESI Act, he can very well seek such remedy under Section17 of the SARFAESI Act, as is permissible.

Insofar as paying the dues in instalment is concerned, definitely, the respondent-Bank would be happy to receive the money without recourse to auctioning and other confirmation of sale, etc. For that purpose, the petitioner may express his willingness by depositing substantial portion of the amount. For that purpose, the Court’s directions are not required. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.

The writ petition is dismissed in limine.