Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manoj Kumar vs M/S Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction ... on 27 September, 2024
Author: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal
CWP-24963--2024 (O&M)
Sr. No.106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-24963
24963-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 27.09.2024
Manoj Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
M/s JM Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited
...Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDE
ANUPINDER SINGH
GREWAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present : Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma,, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Advocate,
for the respondent.
***
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)
(Oral Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had taken a loan for a sum of Rs.17 lakh on 07.02.2017. He could not repay the same due to financial difficulty. Notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 28.11.2023 for a sum of Rs.21,89,184/- (Annexure P-6).
6). Notice under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued on 09.05.2024 (Annexure P-8).
P Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that petitioner has filed a Securitization Application vide diary No.2117/2024 before the DRT-II, DRT II, Chandigarh which cannot be listed and heard as DRT-II DRT I is not functioning at present and submits that petitioner may be protected till DRT-II DRT II resumes its functioning.
2. Issue notice to the respondent.
3. Mr. Pradeep Sharma, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of the respondent and submits that in the event of the petitioner making a payment of Rs.5,17,000/-
Rs.5,17,000/ within a period of one week, his account would be regularized.
Page 1 of 2 VANDANA 2024.09.27 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this documentCWP-24963-2024 2024 (O&M)
4. The petitioner is stated to have have filed SA before the DRT DRT-II, and due to its non-functioning, non functioning, the same is not being taken up for hearing. The petitioner or a litigant cannot be left remediless especially when the same has been provided by a Statute. We draw our support from the order of the Supreme Court dated 16.12.2021 in the case of ''State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of India' Special Leave Petition (C) No.10911/2021 Relevant extract is reproduced herein No.10911/2021. herein-below:-
"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 make it clear that once the Tribunal(s) is/are constituted, 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-II resumes its functioning.
6. Consequently, the petition is disposed of with a direction that no o coercive steps under the SARFAESI Act be taken against the petitioner for a period of 15 days after the DRT-II DRT resumes its functioning.
7. In the meantime, petitioner would be at liberty to pay the outstanding amount as stated by the learned counsel for the respondent and in that eventuality, his account would be regularized.
8. Needless to observe that we are not making any expression on the merits of the case which would be adjudicated by the DRT in accordance with law.
9. This petition p stands disposed of.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (LAPITA BANERJI) JUDGE September 277, 2024 vandana Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VANDANA 2024.09.27 14:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document