In Re: State Bank Of India vs Raja Rao on 16 May, 2013

[Cites 3, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

In Re: State Bank Of India vs Raja Rao on 16 May, 2013

Bench: Dipankar Datta

                                                 1


6.5.13
                           W. P. 14675 (W) of 2013



         In re: State Bank of India          ... Petitioner


         Mr. V. Raja Rao
         Ms. A. Rao                   ...For the Petitioner


         Ms. Jayati Chowdhury         ... For the Respondents No.3

and 7/Company The petitioner is the secured creditor. Against its action to enforce the security interest, the private respondents have moved an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction under Section 17(1) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, registered as SARFAESI Application No.40 of 2011. It is pending for the last two years. The private respondents have been enjoying an interim order.

The secured creditor is aggrieved because despite the clear statutory mandate in sub-section (5) of Section 17 of the Act that an application under sub-section (1) thereof ought to be decided within four months, there is no possibility of an early outcome of the SARFAESI application filed by the private respondents.

Learned advocate appearing for the private respondents submits that this writ petition ought not to be entertained having regard to the provision of sub- 2 section 6 of Section 17 of the Act, which provides a remedy to the secured creditor.

It is also submitted that substantial sums have since been deposited by the private respondents and efforts are on, from their side, to work out an amicable settlement.

I have heard the learned advocates for the parties. It is true that sub-section (6) of Section 17 of the Act entitles the secured creditor to approach the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal for a direction for expeditious disposal of an application filed under sub-section (1). However, that does not take away its right to approach the writ court for a similar direction. In the present case, it is all the more necessary to entertain this writ petition since the application under Section 17(1) of the Act is pending before the tribunal for nearly two years.

This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the observation that the parties shall be entitled to work out an amicable settlement by reaching a consensus. However, if no settlement can be worked out within 30th June, 2013, the tribunal shall proceed to decide the application under Section 17(1) of the Act without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties and shall make sincere endeavour to dispose of the same by the end of July, 2013.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible.

(Dipankar Datta, J.) 3

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)