Chattisgarh High Court
Deepa Rudra vs Icici Bank, Nehru Nagar Branch on 13 January, 2022
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Writ Petition (C) No. 37 of 2022
1. Deepa Rudra W/o Sujit Kumar Rudra, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Lila
Deep, House No. 85, New Deepak Nagar, Durg, District Durg
Chhattisgarh.
2. Sujit Kumar Rudra S/o Late Shri Ajit Kumar Rudra, Aged About 65
Years, R/o Lila Deep, House No. 85, New Deepak Nagar, Durg,
District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioners
Versus
ICICI Bank, Nehru Nagar Branch Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiya, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order On Board 13.01.2022
1. The petitioners through the present writ petition have assailed Section 13 proceedings initiated by the respondents under the SARFAESI Act on the alleged ground of default in repaying the loan amount extended by the respondent Bank.
2. The petitioners had obtained loan from the respondent bank initially for an amount of rupees fifty two lakhs in the year 2018. Subsequently, by way of transfer of another loan of rupees five lakhs from a different Bank to the respondent in June, 2020, got merged with the already existing loan of the petitioners with the respondent. Subsequently, the petitioners had again obtained another loan of rupees 11.5 lakhs under the Emergency Credit Line Guarantee 2 Scheme (ECLGS) floated by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. Thus, in all the loan amount outstanding became rupees 68.5 lakhs.
3. The contention of the counsel for petitioners is that on account of the impact of Covid-19 pandemic, the small business for which the petitioners had obtained loan incurred huge loss and the petitioners could not make repayment in time. That as on 06.05.2021, since there was an outstanding amount of only around six lakh rupees, the respondent Bank has declared the loan account of petitioners as NPA and thereafter has initiated the SARFAESI proceedings against the residential house occupied by the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that they do not intend to defraud the respondents in any manner by not making the repayment but it was only because of the precarious conditions prevailing that they could not clear the dues. He further submits that the petitioners have approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for an interim protection so that the respondent may not initiate any auction proceeding against the mortgaged property as the petitioners would not be in a position to get an interim protection from the forum having jurisdiction to the matters arising out of SARFAESI proceedings as the DRT, Jabalpur which has the jurisdiction is not functional for quite sometime for want of a Presiding Officer. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioners are already in the process of approaching the DRT, Jabalpur by filing a suitable Securitization Application ventilating their grievance. However, they be protected in between.
5. Considering the limited relief that the petitioners have sought for, the 3 writ petition at this juncture is entertained by this Court keeping in view the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India wherein vide order dated 16.12.2021 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made an observation granting permission to the High Courts for entertaining the writ petitions pertaining to the matters which otherwise could have been dealt with by DRTs and DRATs. If the contentions of the petitioners are to be believed, only an amount of rupees six lakhs is outstanding.
6. Accordingly, as an interim measure, subject to the petitioners depositing an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with the respondent Bank within a period of 30 days from today, the respondents are directed not to initiate any further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act against the petitioners. Meanwhile, the petitioners should also approach the DRT, Jabalpur by filing a suitable Securitization Application. That the moment the DRT, Jabalpur becomes functional upon a regular appointment being made, the order passed by this Court in the present writ petition would automatically lose its efficacy and the petitioners would have to approach the DRT, Jabalpur for any further relief if they so want in the factual backdrop then existing.
7. The respondent Bank would also be at liberty to decide the application for restructuring of the loan as proposed by the petitioners.
8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Khatai