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
7 paragraphs · 229 wordsManoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Petitioners are borrowers, who are facing recovery proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that due to non-availability of Presiding Officer at Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, the remedy under Section 17 of the said Act has become illusory.
This submission has however been disputed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no. 1, who submits that Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow has been given additional charge, who is virtually hearing the cases of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun on each Friday.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners then submits that petitioners are ready and willing to repay the loan and all they want is some reasonable time, in order to arrange for necessary funds.
Having regard to willingness shown by petitioners to repay the loan, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to them to make representation to the Competent Authority in Punjab National Bank, within one week from today. If petitioners deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with their representation, then the Competent Authority in the bank shall take decision on petitioners' representation, in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within two weeks from the date of its presentation.
Let a certified copy of this order be issued today itself.