AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 275 wordsManoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners are borrowers, who are facing proceedings for recovery under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Petitioners had earlier submitted a proposal for one time settlement, which has been rejected on the ground that the offer made by the petitioner is not adequate. Now, an e-auction notice has been issued against the secured asset of the petitioners, on 03.01.2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners may be permitted to submit fresh offer for one time settlement in the respondent-bank. He further submits that on account of vacancy on the post of Presiding Officer; Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun is not functioning these days, therefore, remedy available under Section 17 of the aforesaid Act has become illusory for the petitioners.
Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank assures the Court that if petitioners submit a fresh offer for one time settlement in the bank, the same shall be considered as per law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioners to submit fresh offer for one time settlement. If such offer is submitted within one week from today along with upfront deposit, as per the scheme, then the competent authority in the bank shall consider the offer made by the petitioner and take appropriate decision, as per law, within two weeks thereafter.
For a period of three weeks or till decision is taken on petitioners’ proposal, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners.
Let a certified copy of this order be issued today itself.