Gauhati High Court
Washim Khan And 4 Ors vs The Oriental Bank Of Commerce And 2 Ors on 20 December, 2019
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam, Parthivjyoti Saikia
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010315442019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 9484/2019
1:WASHIM KHAN AND 4 ORS
S/O- KARIMULLA LHAN, R/O- ELORA PATH, H NO. 28, P.O AND P.S-
HATIGAON, GUWAHATI- 781038, DIST- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM
2: DINESH KUMAR THAKUR
S/O- RAM PRABESH THAKUR
R/O- H NO. 40
K C ROAD
CHATRIBARI
P.S- PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI- 781008
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
3: JAY SHANKAR SINGH
S/O- SRI UPENDRA SINGH
R/O- ABC
TARUN NAGAR
BYE LANE NO.6
H NO. 46
P.S- DISPUR
P.O- CHRISTIAN BASTI
GUWAHATI- 05. DIST- KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
4: JAYANTI BORO
W/O- SRI PUNU BORO
R/O- KACHARI BASTI
P.O- PANBAZAR
P.S- PALTAN BAZAR
GUWAHATI- 781007
DUST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3
5: MONU SHARMA
W/O- SRI KISU SHARMA
R/O- JALNUR ALI ROAD
LAKHTOKIA
RAILWAY GATE NO.2
GUWAHATI- 781001
DIST- KAMRUP(M)
ASSA
VERSUS
1:THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE AND 2 ORS
A GOVT OF INDIA UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS MAIN OFFICE AT
GURGAON, HARYANA AND BEING REP. IN THE PROCEEDING ITS CIRCLE
OFFICER, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, ZOO
NARENGI BRANCH, H NO. 319, HATIGARH CHARIALI, MOTHER TERESA
ROAD, GUWAHATI- 781024, DIST- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM
2:THE AUTHORISED OFFICER
OFFICE AT ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE
ZOO NARENGI BRANCH
H NO. 319
HATIGARH CHARIALI
MOTHER TERESA ROAD
GUWAHATI- 781024
DIST- KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
3:MUHAMMAD KAMAL
S/O- LATE ABDUL SAMAD
R/O- HAMID COMPLEX
COL JALNUR ALI ROAD
LAKHTOKIA
GUWAHATI- 781001
DIST- KAMRUP(M)
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS P CHAKRABORTY
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
ORDER
Date : 20-12-2019 Page No.# 3/3 Suman Shyam, J Heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners are the tenants in respect of mortgaged property which have been attached by the respondent bank in a proceeding initiated for recovery of the loan amount availed by the respondent no. 3 i.e. the landlord.
By referring to the amendments carried out to section 17(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, Ms. Chakraborty submits that her client would have a limited right in the matter and they are also willing to deposit the rent directly to the bank but due to the fact that the learned Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Guwahati is not functional as on date, the petitioners have been left remedy-less.
After going through the statements made in the petition, we are of the prima facie opinion that the grievance raised in the writ petition, lies in the domain of the learned DRT but since it has been stated that the Tribunal is not functional at present and the learned Presiding Officer would be available only after 03/01/2020, in the interest of justice, we have no option but to issue notice in this case.
Issue notice returnable on 10/01/2020.
Petitioners to take steps for service of notice upon the respondents by registered post with A/D as well as by usual process within three days from today.
Heard on the prayer of interim relief.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct that status quo as regards the mortgaged property in question, be maintained till the returnable date subject to the condition that within a week from today, the petitioners would approach the learned DRT, Guwahati, by filing appropriate application so as to avail the statutory remedy, if any, permissible under the law, along with a prayer for interim relief.
It is made clear that pendency of this writ petition shall not be a bar for the learned DRT to consider such prayer of the petitioners on merit and pass appropriate order thereon, as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Let this matter be listed again on 10/01/2020 for further orders.
JUDGE JUDGE Sukhamay Comparing Assistant