High CourtsSingle Bench

M/s Teleglobe Enterprises vs Authorised Officer & Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 30 November 2021 · Citation: (2021) 11 UK CK 0197

HON’BLE JUDGES
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 — Section 13(2), 13(4), 17
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2503 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

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 · 412 words

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1.

Petitioner took a loan from Union Bank of India, Main Branch, Rishikesh, District Dehradun for setting up an electronic shop. Since petitioner defaulted in repayment of loan, therefore, Bank has initiated recovery proceedings by invoking provision of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short "SARFAESI Act"). Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court challenging the notice issued under Sections 13(2) & 13(4) of SARFAESI Act.

2.

Ms. Sunayna Kohli Kothari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that due to lockdown imposed in view of COVID-19, petitioner's business had suffered a setback due to which some installments of the loan could not be repaid in time. She further submits that petitioner is ready and willing to repay the outstanding loan amount as early as possible, for which petitioner needs some time for arranging necessary funds.

3.

Ms. Monika Pant, learned counsel for the Bank submits that cash credit limit of Rs. 20.00 lakh was sanctioned to the petitioner and the said loan amount was declared to be Non-Performing Asset on 21.03.2021. She further submits that notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was issued to the petitioner on 07.04.2021 and notice under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act has been issued to the petitioner on 05.10.2021.

4.

Ms. Sunayna Kohli Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Debts Recovery Tribunal is non-functional for quite some time due to non-availability of Presiding Officer. She further submits that appointment of new Presiding Officer would take some time, therefore, the remedy to approach Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act is also not available to the petitioner.

5.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to approach the Competent Authority in the Bank by making a proposal/representation seeking permission to repay the outstanding loan amount in installments, within a week. He shall, however, deposit a sum of ₹3.00 lakh, along with representation to show his bonafide. The Competent Authority in the Bank shall take decision on petitioner's proposal, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such representation. The Bank shall also provide statement of account to the petitioner, so that petitioner may ascertain the exact amount, which he is liable to pay.

6.

Let certified copy of this order be supplied to the petitioner within 24 hours.