Chattisgarh High Court
Mr. Shilendra Gyanchandani vs Bank Of Baroda on 3 January, 2022
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 5547 of 2021
1. Mr. Shilendra Gyanchandani S/o Shri Chuhadmal Gyanchandani
Aged About 47 Years H. No. 15, Mahalaxmi Enclave, Sihava Road,
Mahant Ghasidas Ward, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, - 493773
2. Mrs. Seema Gyanchandani W/o Mr. Shailendra Gyanchandani Aged
About 45 Years H. No. 15, Mahalaxmi Enclave, Sihava Road, Mahant
Ghasidas Ward, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, - 493773
3. Mr. Dharmendra Gyanchandani S/o Shri Chuahdmal Gyanchandani
Aged About 49 Years H. No. 15, Mahalaxmi Enclave, Sihava Road,
Mahant Ghasidas Ward, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, - 493773
4. Mrs. Usha Gyanchandani W/o Mr. Dharmendra Gyanchandani Aged
About 46 Years H. No. 15, Mahalaxmi Enclave, Sihava Road, Mahant
Ghasidas Ward, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, - 493773
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. Bank Of Baroda Through Its Authorised Officer, Regional Stressed
Asset Recovery Branch, Regional Office First Floor, Zonal Market,
Sector - 10, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh.
2. Bank Of Baroda Through Its Branch Manager, Sihava Road, Raipur
Road, Tehsil And District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
3. District Magistrate Office Of District Magistrate, District Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh
4. The Superintendent Of Police Office Of S.P., Dhamtari, District
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
5. The Sub Divisional Magistrate Office Of S.D.M, Dhamtari, District
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh
----Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Pranjal Agrawal, Advocate with Mr. Yashvardhan Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents No.1&2 : Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate For State : Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 2 03/01/2022
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking for an interim protection to the petitioners restraining the respondent No.1 from taking possession of the property of the petitioners, which was mortgaged by the petitioners with the respondents No.1 & 2 whiling taking loan.
2. The respondents No.1 & 2 is said to have initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. After initiation of the proceedings under Section 13, the District Magistrate subsequently has now passed an order under Section 14 ordering for taking possession of the property belonging to the petitioners.
3. The petitioners submit that they have already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur vide Securitisation Application No. 376/2021. However, for want of Presiding Officer at the said Bench of Tribunal at Jabalpur, the matter could not be taken up for hearing either on admission or on consideration on interim application, which has necessiated the petitioners in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Relying upon the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh v. Union of India" Special Leave to Appeal No. 10911/2021, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 16.12.2021 have requested all the High Courts to entertain matters falling within the jurisdiction of the DRTs and DRATs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the amount outstanding as shown by the respondents No.1 & 2 as on date is roughly around Rs.58 lakhs, the amount which is otherwise an incorrect amount, in as much as there is some discrepancies so far as a date on which the petitioners-establishment had been declared as NPA, as there are conflicting dates reflected from the correspondences issued by the respondents No.1 & 2-Bank itself, which would perhaps vitiate the entire proceedings under the SARFAESI Act itself.
5. This fact has also been challenged by the petitioners in the Securitisation Application pending consideration before the DRT, Jabalpur. However, for want of a regular forum the petitioners are not in a position to get a relief from the said Tribunal. Therefore they have approached this Court seeking a limited prayer that as long as the Tribunal becomes functional, the petitioners be protected to the extent of the possession of the petitioners' property be not taken as of now.
6. Per contra, Mr. Ankit Agrawal, Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 & 2 submits that admittedly the petitioners are owe huge amount of money to respondents No.1 & 2-Bank and at this juncture granting a blanket injunction in favour of the petitioners would be putting the respondents No.1 & 2-Bank to a huge financial loss and therefore some conditional order may be passed, so that the interest of the respondents No.1 & 2 also is taken care of.
7. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, particularly taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, who admits that when the 4 petitioners were initially shown to have been declared NPA on 30.06.2018, the amount outstanding against the petitioners was roughly around Rs.60 lakhs, of which Rs.12.5 lakhs have already been paid by the petitioners to the respondents-Bank and thus the outstanding amount as on date would roughly be around Rs.47.5 lakhs. Be that as it may, if the contention of the petitioners is to be accepted, admittedly he owes the respondents-Bank an amount of Rs.47.5 lakhs.
8. Under the given circumstances, when this Court is entertaining the writ petition only till a regular appointment of Presiding Officer or the DRT Jabalpur becomes functional, ends of justice would meet if the writ petition at this juncture stands disposed of conditionally to the extent that, subject to the petitioner paying an amount of Rs.20 lakhs to the respondents-Bank within a period of 60 days from today i.e. 3rd of January, 2022 the possession part of the petitioners shall not be disturbed pursuant to the order under Section 14 passed by the District Magistrate on 10.12.2021 till the DRT, Jabalpur becomes functional.
9. It is made clear that the moment that the DRT becomes functional by a regular appointment of a Presiding Officer, the order passed by this Court in this writ petition would loose its efficacy.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved