Himachal Pradesh High Court
Kuldeep Sharma vs Canara Bank And Others on 25 February, 2020
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No. 714 of 2020
.
Decided on: 25.02.2020
Kuldeep Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
Canara Bank and others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice.
The Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner: Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate, for
respondents No. 1 and 5.
Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate, for
respondent No. 4.
Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General,
with M/s. J.K. Verma, Adarsh K.
Sharma, Ritta Goswami and Nand Lal
Thakur, Additional Advocates
General, for respondent No. 6.
L. Narayana Swamy, Chief Justice. (Oral)
The order, dated 22nd January, 2020 (Annexure P
5), passed by the Debts Recovery TribunalI, Chandigarh 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2020 20:24:13 :::HCHP 2(hereinafter referred to as 'DRT') is impugned herein wherein the respondentBank has been permitted to take physical .
possession of the property statedly belonging to the petitioner.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the loan was granted under a Scheme floated by the Government of India, for which no collateral security has been taken and the case of the petitioner should have been considered in view of the Scheme floated by the Government of India.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondentBank submits that the instant writ petition deserves to be dismissed outrightly since it is not maintainable, as the petitioner has to approach the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'DRAT') against the impugned order (Annexure P5) in terms of Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act'). He has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2020 20:24:13 :::HCHP 34. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
.
5. It is pertinent to record herein that in terms of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, an Appeal has been provided before the DRAT against any order made by the DRT. The petitioner herein, instead of approaching the DRAT, has preferred the instant writ petition before this Court.
6. Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in case this petition is to be dismissed, liberty may be granted to the petitioner to approach the DRAT within a period of three weeks from today and the threat of dispossession may be stayed.
7. Though, we hold that this writ petition is not maintainable, however, keeping in view the factum of pendency of the instant writ petition before this Court since 12th February, 2020, this writ petition is disposed of directing/ permitting the petitioner to approach the DRAT within a period of three weeks. In the event of filing of the Appeal by the petitioner before the DRAT, the factum of pendency of the instant writ petition before this Court shall be taken note of by ::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2020 20:24:13 :::HCHP 4 the DRAT for the purpose of condonation of delay. In the interregnum, the respondentBank shall not take any coercive .
steps with regard to dispossession of the petitioner.
8. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications.
Copy dasti.
r to (L. Narayana Swamy)
Chief Justice
(Jyotsna Rewal Dua)
Judge
February 25, 2020
( rajni )
::: Downloaded on - 25/02/2020 20:24:13 :::HCHP