Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25128 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ruksana Parvin Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Shandilya,Ganesh Mani Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anadi Krishna Narayana
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajal Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Bank and learned Standing Counsel for State authorities.
By means of this writ petition the petitioner is challenging possession notice dated 25.05.2018 issued under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 2002").
The petitioner had taken loan from respondent no.
3 for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- on 08.09.2011, thereafter a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- on 25.01.2011 and thereafter again took a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- on 01.06.2013, thus total loan amount being Rs.11,50,000/-. Petitioner defaulted in payment of the aforesaid amount on account of which notice under Section 13(2) of Act, 2002 was issued, in response thereto the petitioner deposited certain amount but sought further time. It appears that proceedings under Section 14 of Act, 2002 were initiated against the petitioner and the property in question was auctioned on 25.01.2018. The sale certificate has also been issued in favour of auction purchaser and at this juncture this writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedings initiated against petitioner under Section 14 of Act, 2002.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- Bank submits that against the proceedings initiated under the Act, 2002 petitioner has already approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "DRT") under Section 17 of Act, 2002 and has also filed an expedite application before the DRT but copy of the Securitisation Application has not yet been served upon the Bank. It is further submitted that since the petitioner has already availed the remedy available to her under the Act, 2002, the writ petition is not maintainable.
We have considered the submissions raised by learned counsel for the parties. Since the petitioner has availed the remedy under Section 17 of Act, 2002, we do not propose to interfere in the matter.
However, since petitioner's application is already pending before the DRT, the writ petition is disposed of with the observation that DRT may decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law without unnecessary adjournments.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 A. Verma (Shashi Kant, J.) (Abhinava Upadhya, J.)