Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8135 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S Sahu Traders Respondent :- Union Bank Of India And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava,Anoop Trivedi,Shrawan Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Agrawal,Sunil Kumar Misra,Vivek Prasad Mathur
Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard Sri Shrawan Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and Sri Sunil Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.
Present petition has been filed to challenge the e-auction sale proceeding dated 10.02.2018 conducted under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act, 2002'). Further relief has been sought by way of consequential relief.
At the outset, preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the Bank that earlier arising proceeding from the first auction notice, petitioner has approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by filing Securitization Application No. 54 of 2016. That Securitization Application was dismissed vide order dated 10.03.2016 which order was challenged before this Court by means of Writ C No.15103 of 2016. The writ petition itself was dismissed on 05.04.2016 in face of alternative remedy under Section 18 of the aforesaid SARFAESI Act.
At that stage of filing of present writ petition, aforesaid second appeal was pending but there was no stay order in operation. Accordingly, the bank proceeded for auction the secured asset during the pendency of the appeal.
Today upon query, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the second appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10.03.2016 has also been dismissed. In absence of challenge to the aforesaid order, we find there was no illegality in e-auction of the secured asset during pendency of appeal, as there was no stay order operating in pending that appeal filed under Section 18 of the aforesaid Act. We find no good ground to interfere in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Petition lacks merit and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 A.Kr.