WRIC/24957/2020 of RADHEY SHYAM GUPTA AND 2 ORS. Vs State of U.P. AND 2 ORS. on 21 December 2020

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24957 of 2020

Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam Gupta And 2 Ors.

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors.Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Sajivan,Shailesh KumarCounsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjai Singh Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

Although the matter has been taken up in the revised list,counsel for respondent-Bank has not appeared.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the auction notice dated27.10.2020 published in the newspaper Hindustan consequentto a possession notice dated 06.10.2020 by which possessionhas been taken by the Bank over the security offered forsecuring a loan of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs)and there was a default in repayment of loan.

The notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization andReconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement ofSecurity Interest Act, 2002 calling upon the petitioner to repaythe loan after declaring the loan as NPA is on 28.11.2019. On apointed query by the Court, counsel for the petitioner states thatno representation or objection was filed by the petitioneragainst the said notice It appears that there is a provision forfiling such objection under Section 13(3)A of the Securitizationand Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement ofSecurity Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").It is only after the objection has been disposed of and in case,the loan has not been repaid, the financial institution isempowered to proceed and to take possession of the security inaccordance with Sub Section (4) of Section 13 of the Act.

Once the possession has been taken under Sub Section (4) ofthe Section 13 of the Act, the debtor has two options, he mayeither deposit the entire amount due as provided under SubSection 8 where upon the financial institution is debarred fromproceeding with the sales of the security or debtor may file anapplication under Section 17 of the Act before the DebtRecovery Tribunal. Under the circumstances, the petitioner hastwo statutory remedies available to him which he may avail asmay be advised.

The only contention at this stage raised by the counsel for thepetitioner that he may be permitted to deposit the out standingloan amount in installments.

In our considered opinion, we do not have the jurisdiction topass such order unless and until the financial institution whichinitiated recovery proceedings consents to such order.

As noted above, none appears on behalf of the respondent bank,therefore, in the absence of any categorical consent by thefinancial institution, the order for the relief as he prayed forcannot be granted.

In the circumstances, the petitioner may avail any of the remedyavailable to him for redressal of his grievance.

Subject to the above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 21.12.2020

saqlain