M/S Mahaluxmi Rice Mills v. The Punjab National Bank And Others
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision: 24.07.2020 M/s Mahaluxmi Rice Mills through its Partner Jangsher Petitioner
Versus
The Punjab National Bank and others Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH, JUDGE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN, JUDGE
Present:
Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kartik Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.
The writ petition is filed seeking quashing of sale notice dated 07th July, 2020 whereby the properties of the petitioner have been put to sale.
The facts in brief are that the petitioner availed cash credit limit from the Punjab National Bank, Branch Office Tarori. In the year 2014, there was default in making the repayments. The account was declared as non-performing asset (for brevity 'NPA') and notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] was issued on 10th January, 2015. The outstanding dues as per the notice were 6,58,51,292/-. A notice under Section 13(4) was issued on 6th January, 2017. The bank filed
[2] an Original Application (O.A.) No.1264 of 2016 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh [for brevity 'DRT'], the application is said to be pending. In the meantime, the possession of the properties were taken in 2017 by the respondent-bank, these were put to auctions in the year 2017 onwards with no success. Now vide notice dated 7th July, 2020, e-auction of the properties is fixed for 29th July, 2020.
The contention is that the bank by fixing the reserve price of the properties at 4,10,00,000/-, is putting the property to auction at throw-away price. Reliance is on the valuation report procured by petitioner on 18th July, 2020 whereby the valuation of the property is higher.
On a specific query during the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that no remedies have been availed by the petitioner against proceedings initiated under Section 13 of the Act, in spite of the fact that the notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Act was issued in January, 2017.
The account of the petitioner was declared NPA in the year 2014 and a notice under Section 13(2) was issued on 10th January, 2015. The respondent-bank has not been able to recover the said amount for more than five years. The petitioner instead of availing alternative remedies, has came before this Court, more so when the O.A. filed by the Bank is still pending before the DRT. The Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, 2010 (8) SCC 110 held:-
[3]
! "
!
#
" ! "
$
"
!
!
" % ! &
'
! !
!
"
(
) * "
+
!
"
!
!
#
!
"
,#
- !
!
"%
$$$
#
!
#
"
! !
" "
)!
[4]
"
"
#
. $
#
!
!
"
!
!
! "
! ! / Learned counsel for the petitioner prays to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail other remedies. However, he raises an apprehension that due to prevalent COVID-19 situation, even on approaching the DRT, the matter may be delayed. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law.
Needless to say that in case of any inordinate delay in the proceedings, the petitioner would be at liberty to have re-course available as per law.
[AVNEESH JHINGAN] [JASWANT SINGH] JUDGE JUDGE July 24, 2020
*"
*
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned :
Yes/ No
2. Whether reportable :
Yes/ No