Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26141 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S Singh Rice Mill Badokhara Respondent :- Debts Recovery Tribunal Prayagraj And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamal Krishna Roy,Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anadi Krishna Narayana,Krishna Mohan Asthana
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Kamal Krishna Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anadi Krishna Narayana, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 4.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition making the following prayers:
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the entire proceeding in O.A. 545 of 2016, Bank of Baroda Vs. M/s Singh Rice Mill.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to declare the petitioner's unit M/s Singh Rice Mill as a sick unit within stipulated time.
iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent nos. 2 & 4 not to proceed with the pending proceeding under the SARFEASI Act, and further not to initiate any proceeding under SARFEASI Act."
The first prayer is for the quashing of the original proceeding which the bank has initiated against the petitioner before the DRT.
If for any reason, the said proceedings are not maintainable, the petitioner may put in appearance in those proceedings and file objections so as to get the matter decide at the preliminary stage.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not pressing the second prayer with regard to declaration of the petitioner as a sick unit.
This leaves us with the third prayer which is for direction to the respondents no. 2 & 4 not to proceed with the proceedings under the SARFEASI Act.
A perusal of the documents enclosed with the writ petition reveals that the bank has provided vide notice dated 26.2.2019 under Section 13(4) of the SARFEASI Act for the realization of Rs.89,63,996.85/- and in the event of non payment of the same, it is proposed to take possession of the secured assets.
The petitioner may take recourse through proceeding under Section 17 of the SARFEASI Act against the aforesaid notice or action on part of the respondent nos. 2 & 4. Accordingly, petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this regard in this petition.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, none of the prayers for the relief claimed by the petitioner in the petition are admissible to the petitioner at this stage in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedies as referred to above.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Ishan