M/S Chaudhary Trading Company And Another v. District Magistrate Palwal And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 3745 of 2021 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.09.2021 M/s. Chaudhary Trading Company, Hodal, Palwal and another .......... Petitioners
Versus
District Magistrate, Palwal (Haryana) and others .......... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANT PARKASH
Present:
Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate, and Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner.
[ The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the proceedings are being conducted in virtual court ] **** JASWANT SINGH, J. (ORAL) Petitioner No. 1 is a proprietorship concern of Man Singh (petitioner No. 2). They have laid challenge to the order dated 26.11.2020 (Annexure P-3) passed by the District Magistrate, Palwal on an application under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short "the Act, 2002") moved by the State Bank of India / Secured Creditor (respondent No. 3), whereby a direction has been issued to Superintendent of Police, Palwal to provide assistance to take physical possession of the secured assets.
It is apparent that the home loan availed for a sum of ` 40 Lakhs on 18.03.2017 from the State Bank of India (respondent No. 3) had been declared as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 28.08.2019 for lack of financial discipline. A notice under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 was DINESH KUMAR 2021.09.30 13:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
C.W.P. No. 3745 of 2021 (O&M) -2issued on 03.09.2019 (Annexure P-1) seeking to recall outstanding amount of ` 42,11,586/- as on 31.08.2019.
Vide order dated 18.02.2021, the petitioner was given an option for a payment of sum of ` 20 Lakhs upfront with some reasonable repayment schedule of the remaining balance to show his bona fides, in order to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Court. At the time of resumed hearing today, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is unable to pay any amount, and infact, he has not paid any amount in the loan account since two and half (21⁄2) years. In view of the above and the fact that the proper remedy for assailing the order dated 26.11.2020 (P-3) passed by the District Magistrate, Palwal would be the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), we find no ground to invoke the writ jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE September 29, 2021 ( SANT PARKASH ) 'dk kamra'
JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No DINESH KUMAR 2021.09.30 13:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document