Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Aditya Kumar Chile vs Idbi Bank on 14 January, 2022
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP No. 888 of 2022
(SHRI ADITYA KUMAR CHILE Vs IDBI BANK AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 14-01-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Akash Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Darshan Soni, Government Advocate for the respondent-State.
The petitioner is a borrower who took loan from the respondent-Bank. Loan amount could not be re-paid and therefore proceeding under SARFAESI Act were initiated. It is informed by learned counsel for petitioner that the respondent Bank applied for an order to be passed by District Magistrate under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act. The order under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act by the District Magistrate appears to have been passed on 05.03.2021.However, the physical possession of the secured assets has not been taken as alleged by the petitioner.
The Apex Court in the case of State Bar Counsel of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of Indian in SLP (C) No. 10911/2021 to make alternate arrangement in the face of non-functionality of DRT, directed thus:-
"With a view to resolve the problem being faced by the parties, for the time being and purely as a stop-gap 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."
It is also informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that DRT Jabalpur is non functional.
In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to serve a copy to respondent no. 1 Bank Humdast for which requisite be filed within three working days.
Till the next date of hearing no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to order under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act in respect of 2 secured assets in question.
List the case for admission and final disposal on 24.01.2022.
(SHEEL NAGU) (SUNITA YADAV)
JUDGE JUDGE
MISHRA
ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA
2022.01.17 17:01:59 +05'30'