Chattisgarh High Court
M/S Srishti Plywood vs Uco Bank on 13 January, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
WPC No. 114 of 2022
M/s Srishti Plywood Versus Uco Bank
13.01.2022 Mr. Shobhit Mishra, counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. P. R. Patankar, counsel for respondent no.1.
Mr. Aman Kesharwani, PL for the State/Respondent no.2 & 3. The present writ petition has been filed seeking for the interim protection pending the regular appointment at the DRT, Jabalpur whereby the petitioner has already filed securitization application against Section 14 order passed by the District Magistrate under Sarfaesi Act.
Contention of the petitioner is that there is some dispute so far as loan amount and recovery being made by the respondent no.1 is concerned one such dispute is also pending before National Consumer Redressal Commission, New Delhi.
It is the further contention of the petitioner that petitioners have been repeatedly approaching the respondent no.1 to consider the offer made by the petitioner for a one time settlement of the loan. According to the petitioner and petitioner he had offered for repayment of the entire principal amount but respondent no.1 has not responded. It is further contention of the petitioner that on account of there being no response by the respondent no.1 Bank on the offer of one time settlement made by the petitioner, they could not deposit the amount payable. That meanwhile the securitization proceedings have been initiated which has now been subjected to challenge before the DRT, Jabalpur which has the jurisdiction. However, for want of a regular Presiding Officer at the DRT, Jabalpur the matter could not be taken up for hearing and petitioner is apprehending auction proceedings against the mortgaged property which has compelled him to approach this Court under Article 226 seeking for an interim protection till DRT becomes functional.
Learned standing counsel for respondent no.1 on the other hand submits that it is a case where the petitioner's loan amount was declared NPA as early as on 13.12.2013 and it has now been roughly 8 years since he has been declared NPA. Further contention of the Bank is that as on date the principal amount outstanding is roughly around 4.97 lakhs and in addition there is interest that has accrued on the principal amount which is more than 14.36 Lakhs as on 31.12.2021. Thus, the total outstanding amount against the petitioner as on date is roughly around Rs. 19 lakhs.
Learned counsel for the Bank submits that if at all, if this Court is inclined to entertain the writ petition, the same be only conditional as the Bank is also incurring loss and are facing difficulty in recovering the said amount from the petitioners. Counsel for the Bank also submitted that order of the District Magistrate under Section 14 also shows that petitioners have taken more than two years time and during that period also the petitioner did not show any interest for settling of the said loan account. Therefore they should not be granted any benefit at this stage and if at all if they are granted, it should be only a conditional order.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. State board Council Vs. Union of India whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 16.12.2021 had permitted the High Courts to entertain the writ petition relating to matters of DRT's and DRAT's. This Court therefore entertains the writ petition only till a regular appointment in the DRT is made and DRT, Jabalpur becomes functional. Having heard the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly taking note of the factual matrix of the case that petitioners were declared NPA as early as in December, 2013 and also taking note of the fact that as per the respondent no.1 the outstanding amount as on date is more than 19 Lakhs purely as an interim measure, subject to the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs. 9 lakhs within a period of 30 days from today the further proceedings arising out of the order under Section 14 passed by the District Magistrate and also any auction proceedings to be initiated by the respondent no.1 shall be deferred till the DRT, Jabalpur becomes functional or matter is taken up by this Court again.
Meanwhile, respondent no.1 Bank may also submit their detailed reply along with the detailed chart of the actual outstanding amount both, the principal as also interest from the outstanding amount and details of the payment that have been periodically made by the petitioners.
List this case after the reply of the respondents are received.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE Rohit