Disposed

M/S Alok Rubber Industries Thru. Proprietor Sri Nalin Kumar Sharma and Anothr v. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 Aug 2024/7363/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged auction notice for property pending recovery proceedings before Debt Recovery Tribunal. Bench declined interference, disposed of petition, and granted liberty to move application for interim relief to the Tribunal within four days.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; liberty granted to move application for interim relief to Debt Recovery Tribunal within four working days.

M/S Alok Rubber Industries Thru. Proprietor Sri… — Execution and Attachment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:58880

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7363 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S Alok Rubber Industries Thru. Proprietor Sri Nalin Kumar Sharma And Anothr Respondent :- Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Mourya,Sunita Dwivedi

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vinay Shankar

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Ms. Sunita Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 3 and Sri Vinay Shankar, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 - Bank.

¶8

Prayer made in the present writ petition is for setting aside the sale notice dated 07.08.2024, by which respondent no. 2 - Bank is going to auction the property of the petitioner on 30.08.2024.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had taken loan from respondent no. 2 for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- and another loan for an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- for purchase of machinery, but when the loans could not be re-paid, consequently, the respondent - Bank has initiated recovery proceedings against petitioner.

¶10

The petitioner being aggrieved by the recovery proceedings moved securitisation application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and during pendency of said proceedings, respondentBank has proceeded to auction the secured assets.

¶11

Considering the fact that proceedings are already pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the petitioner has made repeated applications for interim relief but the same have not been heard and accordingly in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for interference by this Court at this stage, in exercise of power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is made out.

¶12

The only grievance of the petitioner is that despite repeated applications having been made to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, neither any date has been fixed nor applications for grant of interim relief have been considered.

¶13

Accordingly, with the consent of parties, present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for interim relief within next four working days. On filing of such application, the Debt Recovery Tribunal shall fix a date on the same, and proceed to dispose of the same within next seven days of filing of said application, after giving full opportunity of hearing to the all the parties, in accordance with law.

¶14

The petitioner as well as respondent no. 2 undertake to cooperate in the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournments. It shall be open for the Tribunal to consider passing of ad-interiminjunction in case application for interim relief could not be disposed of within the time prescribed by this Court.

¶15

Order Date :- 29.8.2024 A. Verma

¶16

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Alok Rubber Industries Thru. Proprietor Sri Nalin Kumar Sharma and Anothr v. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Alok Rubber Industries Thru. Proprietor Sri Nalin Kumar Sharma and Anothr v. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Azam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Medical Education and Training U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Ramharaakh vs Satyendra Kumar, D.M. / Collector, Barabanki

Sanjeev Kumar Sinha and 2 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Secretariat Administration Deptt. and 10 Others

Ashutosh Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Anand Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Horticulture U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

G.C.R.G. Memorial Trust Lucknow Thru. Authorized Signatory Sri Amar Nath Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Technical Education, Lko. and 3 Others