Naresh Chand Jain v. Union Of India And ORS

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P. (C) 2986/2020 & CM Nos.10351-52/2020 NARESH CHAND JAIN ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr. Vaijayant Khanna, Advocate.

versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through:

Ms. Monika, Advocate for R-1.

Ms. Tara Narula, Advocate for R-2.

Mr. S.L. Gupta, R-3.

CORAM:

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

O R D E R

% 22.04.2020 1.

This hearing has been held by video conferencing. 2.

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging notice dated 21st March, 2020 by which the Respondent No.3 - State Bank of India had put up immovable property of the Petitioner for auction on 23rd March 2020. The lockdown came into effect on 22nd March, 2020. Mr. S.L. Gupta, ld. counsel appearing for the State Bank of India submits that on 18th April, 2020, a corrigendum has already been issued postponing the auction. 3.

Ld. counsels appearing for the Union of India and the GNCTD submit that they have a limited role in this matter. 4.

Since the auction notice, which is impugned in the present case has already been cancelled in effect and the auction is not being proceeded further during the lockdown period, the writ petition itself does not survive. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that no auction ought to be conducted by the bank during the lockdown period. Mr. Gupta, ld. counsel submits that

the Bank would be bound by any directions issued by the respective Governments/authorities in this regard. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of recording the statement of the State Bank of India that the impugned auction has already been postponed. If any fresh notice for auction is issued, the Petitioner's remedies in respect thereof are left open, to be availed of in accordance with law. All pending applications are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

APRIL 22, 2020 Rahul/dj/rg