← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/19285/2018disposed of

Anand Kumar And Another v. The Debts Recovery Tribunal Ii & Others

2019-01-09Mr. Justice R.C. Kathuria (Retd.),Mr. Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19285 of 2018 (O&M) Decided on : 09.01.2019 Anand Kumar and another . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

The Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh and others . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL PRESENT: Mr. Tegjeet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Atul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Vipul Dharmani, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.

Mr. Deepak Manchanda, Advocate for the applicant (in CM-14482-CWP-2018).

**** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) Challenge in this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to the impugned actions of the respondent Bank vide which the physical possession of the residential house, # 596 P, Sector 4, Panchkula (dated 04th July, 2018, Annexure P-6) had been taken as well as the impugned actions of respondent No.1-Authorized Officer of the respondent-Bank, wherein, the process as prescribed under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'the 2002 Act') and the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002, have been misutilized, while trying to proceed against the property of the petitioners. 2.

Learned counsel for the parties stated that the the proposal under the One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme, as furnished by the petitioners had been accepted by the respondent-Bank and the petitioner had already complied with the terms of the OTS. Accordingly, it was prayed by learned counsel for the parties JAWALA RAM 2019.01.11 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 19285 of 2018 (O&M) - 2 - that the lis has been settled, therefore, the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous and may be disposed of as such.

3.

Ordered accordingly.

4.

Consequently, CM No. 14482-CWP of 2018 filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of CPC, for impleading the applicant as respondent No.4, also stands disposed of as infructuous. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE January 09, 2019 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2019.01.11 10:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh