Bombay High Court
Raghunath Maku Kokare And Anr vs Gic Housing Finance Limited on 4 May, 2023
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, Abhay Ahuja
skn 1 WPL-13338.2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 13338 OF 2023
Mr.Raghunath Maku Kokare and another. ... Petitioners.
V/s.
GIC Housing Finance Limited. ... Respondent.
Mr.Ankit Tiwari i/b. V.B.Tiwari & Co. for the Petitioner.
Ms.Dimple Tejani i/b. Sanjay Anabhawane for the Respondent.
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND
ABHAY AHUJA, JJ.
DATE : 4 May 2023. P.C. :
Not on board. Taken on board by way of praecipe.
2. The learned counsel for the Petitioners states that an order is passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal refusing to grant interim relief against which the Petitioners have filed an appeal, however, since the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal is not sitting today, the Petitioners have approached this Court because the date for taking possession of the secured premises is today. The learned counsel for the Respondent- secured creditor confirms that DRAT Member is not present today nor any alternate arrangement, even on ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2023 15:49:47 ::: skn 2 WPL-13338.2023.doc video-conferencing, is made. Both counsel make a grievance that the learned Member has gone on leave without any prior intimation.
3. Earlier in similar situation, in Writ Petition No.3697/2023 and another, we had brought to the notice of the learned Additional Solicitor General that the members of the DRT and DRAT go on leave, often together, without making any alternate arrangement. The litigants litigants, both the borrowers and others and the secured creditors are put to inconvenience if no alternate arrangement is made, being forced to approach this Court. We had passed the following order on 21 March 2023:
" These two Petitions arise from different facts, but they are taken up together because the reason why the Petitioners had to approach this Court is common. The reason is that the concerned Members of the Debts Recovery Tribunal were on leave to attend the Seminar without notifying any alternate arrangement, and both the Petitioners are facing the deadline and have no other remedy but to approach this Court.
2. In Writ Petition (L) No. 8056 of 2023 (now numbered as WP No. 3697 of 2023), the Petitioners were facing with the sale notice of the secured assets dated 20 February 2023 received on 24 February 2023, subsequent sale dated 10 March 2023 and sale confirmation of 14 March 2023. The Petitioners filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune, in respect of these actions taken by the Secured Creditor. As regard orders to be sought in the pending applications, the Petitioners could not apply in the pending application to the DRT because the notice was issued by the DRT, Pune informing all members of DRT, Bar and the litigants of the Districts that on account of the attending a Seminar held at Bhopal, the Presiding Officer is not available from 18 March 2023 to 24 March 2023.::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2023 15:49:47 :::
skn 3 WPL-13338.2023.doc
3. In Writ Petition (Lodg.) No. 7818 of 2023, the Petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 14 February 2023 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in Mumbai under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002 and subsequent notice dated 2 March 2023, the Petitioner had filed the securitization application before the DRT-II, Mumbai. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner sought interim order on the ground of directions issued by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). However, there was confusion as regards the transfer of papers arising out of the change in the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The grievance of the Petitioner was that the DRT was not sitting on 20 March 2023 to 24 March 2023 without making an alternate arrangement.
4. In light of the fact that not only these two petitions but other petitions were moved for urgent orders before us because of the unavailability of DRT members without notifying alternate arrangements, we were constrained to consider the matter with seriousness. The DRT must keep in mind the inherently time-sensitive nature of its jurisdiction, and filing a writ petition in the High Court cannot be considered a viable substitute when the members of the DRT do not function on working days without providing for an alternative arrangement.
5. We requested Mr. Anil Singh, the learned Additional Solicitor General, to assist the Court in looking into the issue. The learned ASG informed us that both Registrars of DRT Mumbai and DRT Pune are present in the Court. He confirmed that the Members of the Mumbai DRT and Pune DRT were on leave to attend a seminar, but also informed us that one DRT was functioning in Mumbai. The learned ASG also acknowledged that the notice issued did not inform the parties of any alternate arrangement. He further stated that general instructions were issued on 18 April 2022 regarding alternate arrangements in case of the unavailability of the Presiding Officer. However, the learned Counsel in Writ Petition (L) No. 8056 of 2023 pointed out that this ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2023 15:49:47 ::: skn 4 WPL-13338.2023.doc arrangement would not work for DRT Pune as there is only one member. In response, the learned ASG informed us that the Registrar of DRAT Mumbai has issued a notice today stating that the charge of DRT-II Mumbai, DRT-III Mumbai, DRT-Pune, DRT-Aurangabad, DRT-Nagpur, DRT-I Ahmedabad, and DRT-II Ahmedabad is entrusted to DRT-I Mumbai.
6. We take note that the notice regarding the charge of all the mentioned Debts Recovery Tribunals being entrusted to DRT-I, Mumbai, was issued only after we had raised the issue in WP 3697/23 yesterday. We find it concerning that all the officers of the mentioned DRTs have proceeded on leave simultaneously to attend the Seminar, leaving litigants seeking urgent relief with no other option but to approach the High Court, despite the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India v/s. Satyawati Tondon1. The learned ASG assures us that the appropriate authorities will be informed and sensitized to ensure that such a situation does not recur. However, this is not an isolated instance, and earlier also, petitions were filed before us due to the unavailability of DRT Members without any alternate arrangement. In such cases, we suggest that the notice should provide an alternate arrangement, and the DRT Registry could explore the possibility of making an alternate forum available through Video Conferencing.
7. Now that the notice is issued regarding an alternate forum in DRT being available to the Petitioners, we are not inclined to examine the merits of the challenge.
8. As regards Writ Petition (L.) No. 8056 of 2023, we have passed an order on 20 March 2023 that we are not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. We observe that if any auction takes place, the same will be subject to the pending application filed by the Petitioner. With these observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
9. As regards Writ Petition (L) No. 7818 of 2023 is concerned, the learned Counsel for the Respondent - Secured 1 AIR 2020 SC 3413 ::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2023 15:49:47 ::: skn 5 WPL-13338.2023.doc Creditor states that action would not be taken against the Petitioner till 28 March 2023. The learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner states that there is an administrative problem regarding the transfer of papers. We expect that the same is sorted out by the DRT so that the appropriate order can be passed in the pending application of the Petitioner. This Writ Petition is also disposed of by recording a statement of the learned Counsel for the Respondent and observing as above."
(emphasis supplied)
4. Again today the same position is repeated. We place our disapproval on record.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances as above, we are left with no alternative but to intervene. We direct that the date for taking possession shall stand rescheduled to 10 May 2023 so that the Petitioner can apply to the DRAT for necessary orders.
6. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 04/05/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 05/05/2023 15:49:47 :::