Patna High Court - Orders
M/S Ashoka Auto Enterprises Private ... vs The Union Of India And Ors on 5 August, 2019
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18790 of 2015
======================================================
M/s Ashoka Auto Enterprises Private Limited Exhibition Road, Patna through
its Director Mrs. Neelam Sahu, wife of Mr. Prabhat Sahu, registered office at
Exhibition Road, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, District Patna Resident of 197-B, S.K.
Puri, P.S.- S.K. Puri, Patna 800001.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union Of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Banking
Division), New Delh.
2. The Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, 34 Bank Road, Opposite
New Police Line, Lodhipur, Pa
3. Canara Bank, Branch Exhibition Road, through its Branch Manager.
4. The Authorised Officer, Canara Bank, Exhibition Road Branch, District-
Patna.
5. Daya Shanker Tiwary, son of late Baidyanath Tiwari, R/o Mohalla-
Sheikhpura, P.S.-Shastri Nagar, District-Patna.
6. Sanjay Kumar, S/o late Laxman Rai, R/o village+P.O.-Imadpur, P.S. Sarai,
District-Vaishali (Hajipur).
7. Smt. Suman Prava, wife of Sri Madhup Kumar Singh, resident of B-4-103,
PRDA, S.K.Puri, Patna-1 (Bihar).
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Bank : Mr.Rajan Ghoshrave, Adv.
For the Auction Purchaser: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
7 05-08-2019Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel representing the bank and the auction purchaser.
In this case as back as on 13.03.2019, this Court had directed the bank to come out with a clear instruction as to the stand of the bank on the request of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the entire dues of the bank with adequate amount of penalty which will be required to be refunded to the auction Patna High Court CWJC No.18790 of 2015(7) dt.05-08-2019 2/4 purchaser in order to save his property.
The bank has filed 3rd supplementary counter affidavit in which a statement has been made that the total closure amount of the account of the petitioner as on 25.03.2019 is Rs.1,78,30,768/-. There will be a future interest till realization of the total dues.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is, however, not satisfied with the statements of account made available on behalf of the bank as according to him the amount disclosed by the bank is not correct and the bank is charging much more than what should have been actually claimed.
Learned counsel for the auction purchaser submits that he has already deposited the entire auction amount and even the sale certificate has been issued in his favour, but because of the present litigation he has been deprived of the property in question.
Perusal of the writ application shows that the petitioner has moved this Court for quashing of the order dated 20.11.2015 passed in S.A. No.178 of 2015 (Annexure-7) by which the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal has dismissed the securitisation application of the petitioner against the auction notice dated 15.10.2015 under Section 13(4) of the Patna High Court CWJC No.18790 of 2015(7) dt.05-08-2019 3/4 Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2002'). The order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal is an appealable order under Section 18 of the Act of 2002 before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Allahabad.
On the last date, this Court had directed the bank to disclose the closure amount only because learned counsel for the petitioner had made a statement that the petitioner is ready to pay the outstanding amount/closure amount of the bank in order to save his property, but today from the statements of learned counsel for the petitioner it appears that the petitioner wants to contest the closure amount.
In the given facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that sitting in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it would not be appropriate for this Court to enter into an issue of accounting and calculation of the outstanding dues. The petitioner has lost before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and in case he is aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application, he has a remedy of statutory appeal available before the appellate Patna High Court CWJC No.18790 of 2015(7) dt.05-08-2019 4/4 tribunal.
This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly.
It, however, goes without saying that the petitioner if so willing may seek its remedy before the appellate authority in accordance with law and in case any question of limitation arises for consideration the same will be considered keeping in view that the petitioner had moved this Court in its writ jurisdiction and was pursuing the same before this Court.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) arvind/-
U