Punjab-Haryana High Court
Babli vs Can Fin Homes Ltd And Others on 6 March, 2025
Author: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
126 CWP-6375-2025
2025
DATE OF DECISION: 06.03.2025
BABLI ... Petitioner (s)
Versus
CAN FIN HOMES LTD AND OTHERS
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present: Mr. Govind Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Aman Arora, Advocate and
Ms. Arti Aman Arora, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India with
Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Senior Panel counsel for UOI.
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with her family members including her son had taken home loan for a sum of Rs.14 lakhs in September 2022. They had been repaying all the instalments till November 2023 but unfortunately in n December 2023, her son was arrested in a criminal case and suffered losses in business, business therefore, herefore, she could not pay the instalments. The respondents had issued notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act for a sum of Rs.13,60,319/-
Rs.13,60,319/ on 03.05.2024. Learned counsel further submits that he has filed a Securitization Application (Annexure P-5)
5) before the DRT-III on 17.12.2024 and notice had been issued by the DRT DRT-II.
II. The matter is now adjourned to 02.04.2025 but as the DRT-II is not functioning due to want of Presiding Officer, it is unlikely to be taken up. The respondents are taking possession of the sole residential house comprising 35 square yards on 07.03.2025 on 07.03.2025.
07.03.2025 He submits that the petitioner may be protected till the DRT-II II resumes its functioning.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that auction has been initiated by the respondent/Bank in terms of the provisions of the Securitization Act as the petitioner has not paid the outstanding amount.
SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.03.07 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this documentCWP-6375-2025 2025 -2-
3. Heard.
4. It is settled law that the petitioner cannot be left remediless especially when the same has been provided by a Statute. We also draw our support from the order of the Supreme Court dated 16.12.2021 in the case of 'State Bar Council uncil of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India' Special Leave Petition (C) No.10911/2021.
No.10911/2021 Relevant extract is reproduced hereinbelow:
hereinbelow:-
"13. With a view to resolve the problem being faced by the parties, for the time being and purely as a stopgap arrangement, we request the concerned High Court(s) to entertain the matters falling within the jurisdiction of DRTs and DRATs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, till further orders.
14. We make it clear that once the Tribunal(s) is/are consti constituted, tuted, the matters can be relegated to the Tribunals by the High Court(s)."
5. As DRT-II DRT is stated to be non-functional, functional, it would be in the interest of justice, if the petitioner is protected for some time till the DRT DRT-II II resumes its functioning.
6. Att this juncture, Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Additional Solicitor General of India submits that the proposal for extending the additional charge of DRT DRT-II II to DRT-II has been sent to the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC).
7. The petition is disposed of with the direction that no coercive measures shall be taken against the petitioner for a period of 15 days after the DRT-II II resumes its functioning.
8. It is clarified that nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to have any bearing on the merits of the case.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 06.03.2025 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.03.07 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document