Punjab-Haryana High Court
Madhu Ahuja vs Bank Of India And Another on 27 September, 2024
Author: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal
CWP- 25133--2024 (O&M)
Sr. No.109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP- 25133
25133-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 27.09.2024
Madhu Ahuja
...Petitioner
Versus
Bank of India and another ...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDE
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
petitioner
***
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)
(Oral Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had taken a home loan for a sum of Rs.40 lakh on 07.0 07.06.2022. She could not repay the same due to financial difficulty. Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 08.09.2023 for a sum of Rs.40,56,478/- (Annexure P-33).
). Notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued on 16.12.2023 (Annexure P-4).
P He submits bmits that now the respondent has issued the sale notice dated 07.09.2024 vide which sale of the mortgaged property has been fixed for 09.10.2024 (Annexure P-6).
P 6).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner has filed a Securitization Securitization Application No.526 of 2024 before the DRT-II, II, Chandigarh which is not being taken up for want of functioning of the DRT-II.
I. He submits that petitioner may be protected till Securitization Application is heard.
3. The petitioner is stated to have filed SA before the DRT DRT-II, and due to its non-functioning, non functioning, the same is not being taken up for hearing. VANDANA 2024.09.27 15:09 Page 1 of 2 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP- 25133-2024 (O&M) The petitioner or a litigant cannot be left remediless especially when the same has been provided by a Statute. We draw our support from the order of the Supreme Court dated 16.12.2021 in the case of 'State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India' Special Leave Petition (C) No.10911/2021. Relevant extract is reproduced herein-below:-
"13. With a view to resolve the problem being faced by the parties, for the time being and purely as a stopgap arrangement, we request the concerned High Court(s) to entertain the matters falling within the jurisdiction of DRTs and DRATs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, till further orders.
14. We make it clear that once the Tribunal(s) is/are constituted, the matters can be relegated to the Tribunals by the High Court(s)."
4. As DRT-II is stated to be non-functional, it would be in the interest of justice, if the petitioner is protected for some time till the DRT-II resumes its functioning.
5. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with a direction that the sale shall not be confirmed for a period of 15 days after the DRT-II resumes its functioning.
6. Needless to observe that we are not making any expression on the merits of the case which would be adjudicated by the DRT in accordance with law.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE September 27, 2024 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VANDANA 2024.09.27 15:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document