Disposed

Save Housing Finance Ltd. Corp. New Delhi Thru. Authorised Officer Mr. Brajendra Singh v. Debt Recovery Tribunal,Lko. Thru. Presiding Officer and Another

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2024/3953/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A housing finance company sought expedited disposal by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow of S.A. No.65 of 2023 pending against it, noting an interim status-quo order had been extended without application. The High Court disposed of the petition directing the Tribunal to proceed expeditiously per Section 17(5) SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

Direction to DRT Lucknow to proceed with S.A. No.65 of 2023 expeditiously and dispose of it per Section 17(5) SARFAESI Act; permission to delete the Tribunal from parties.

Save Housing Finance Ltd. Corp. New Delhi Thru… — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:58451

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3953 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Save Housing Finance Ltd. Corp. New Delhi Thru. Authorised Officer Mr. Brajendra Singh Respondent :- Debt Recovery Tribunal,Lko. Thru. Presiding Officer And Another

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anchal Shukla,Ganga Sagar Misra

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Shri G.S. Misra, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶8

Keeping in view the nature of relief sought and the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the opposite party is dispensed with.

¶9

Upon an oral request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to delete the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow from the array of parties forthwith.

¶10

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow to expeditiously decide S.A. No.65 of 2023 pending before it.

¶11

The aforesaid securitization application has been filed by the opposite parties and on 22.03.2024, the Debt Recovery Tribunal has issued notice to the opposite party (petition in this petition) and had directed the parties to maintain status-quo till the next date fixed. The aforesaid order was not extended on the next date fixed i.e. on 11.04.2024 or on any of the numerous dates fixed thereafter. However, without any application for extension of the order having been filed, on 02.07.2024, the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow has extended the interim order.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the

¶13

Court towards the statutory provisions contained in Section 17 (5) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, which provides that any application made under sub-Section 1 of Section 17 shall be dealt with by the Debt Recovery Tribunal as expeditiously as possible and dispose of within 60 days from the date of such application.

¶14

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, this petition is disposed of by issuing a direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow to proceed with S.A. No.65 of 2023 expeditiously, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and to dispose of the same keeping in view the mandate contained in Section 17 (5) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

¶15

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

¶16

Order Date :- 28.8.2024 -Amit K-

¶17

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Save Housing Finance Ltd. Corp. New Delhi Thru. Authorised Officer Mr. Brajendra Singh v. Debt Recovery Tribunal,Lko. Thru. Presiding Officer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Save Housing Finance Ltd. Corp. New Delhi Thru. Authorised Officer Mr. Brajendra Singh v. Debt Recovery Tribunal,Lko. Thru. Presiding Officer and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Rustam @ Rustam Vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Manau Vs Civil Judge (J.D.) Sadar Dist. Pratapgarh and 9 Others

Rohit Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt. Sadhna Vs Chief Judicial Magistrate Room No. 16, Sultanpur and 7 Others

Shyam Kishor Shukla Vs Civil Judge (S.D)Lko and 2 Others

Madan Nag Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko