Court No. - 40
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21625 of 2017 Petitioner :- M/S Maa Laxmi Ice & Cold Storage And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Chadha,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amrish Sahai
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar Chadha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Amrish Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent-bank.
The main dispute in this writ petition is as to whether the property mentioned in the restructuring plan can be subject to proceedings of possession under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2002") or not.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of re- structuring of the loan to which the petitioners have agreed and complied with, can the Bank proceed contrary to the same.
The contention is that the properties that had been earlier mortgaged in relation to the respondent no. 5 stood de-linked and they now continue to be the exclusive property of the petitioners free from mortgage. In such circumstances taking possession of such property which had been de-linked under the re-schedulement agreed between the parties, is unjustified and contrary to what had been agreed to between the petitioners and the respondent nos. 3 and 4, bank.
We have considered the submissions raised and what we find is that the question as to whether the property in question can be subjected to such proceedings after being de-linked as has been alleged by the petitioners, is a question of fact which can be objected to and decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, in the event the petitioners approach the Tribunal in terms of Section 17 of the Act, 2002.
The question of taking possession or otherwise retaining it, would be dependent on the determination of such a question for which a Securitisation Application would be maintainable in terms of Section 17 of the Act, 2002 We are consequently not inclined to keep this matter pending without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal by invoking the provisions of Section 17 of the Act, 2002 in order to get a determination made about the status of the property as to whether it is still mortgaged or has been de-linked as alleged on behalf of the petitioners. Any orders passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal would be binding on the Bank and also determine the status of possession accordingly.
The writ petition therefore stands disposed of with aforesaid observations without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to raise all such objections that may be available to them under law.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 A. Verma