Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2999/2013 of Ms. Aishwarya Punj Vs State Of Uttarakhand AND OTHERS on 31 December 2013
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.2999 (M/S) of 2013 Ms. Aishwarya Punj …….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….Respondents Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate, present for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Paresh
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALWrit Petition No.2999 (M/S) of 2013
Ms. Aishwarya Punj …….Petitioner Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ….Respondents Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate, present for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel, present for State/respondent no. 1.
3. Petitioner, by means of the present writ petition has challenged the notice under Section 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (from herein after referred to as “the SARFAESI Act,2002”).
4. Admittedly the petitioner has taken a Cash Credit Limit of `25.00 lakhs and a term loan of `22.00 lakhs on 19[th] November, 2008 which has not been repaid and the asset of the petitioner has been declared as Non Performing Asset. Initially a notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was given and thereafter proceedings under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 has been initiated.
5. Petitioner has relied upon a Master Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India dated 01.07.2013 and a Government Order dated 01.08.2013, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, which has been issued to all Public Sector Banks, including the respondent/Bank, which says that due to the natural calamity which Uttarakhand has faced in the year 2013, the Banks should not insist on repayment of loan or its interest, for a period of one year in respect of all kind of loans that are outstanding in Uttarakhand. However, the Bank has still initiated proceedings against the petitioner.
6. Be that as it may, the petitioner presently has a statutory remedy to file an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
7. An order or a circular, such as what is being relied upon by the petitioner cannot override the statutory provisions of law. Moreover, this pleading is always available to the petitioner before Debt Recovery Tribunal.
8. In view of the above, writ petition is presently dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to approach Debt Recovery Tribunal.
9. Purely in the interest of justice, for a period of one month or till the date petitioner approaches the Debt Recovery Tribunal, whichever is earlier, further proceedings initiated by the Bank of Baroda against the petitioner shall remain stayed to enable the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
ML
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)
31.12.2013