Partly allowed

Vaibhav Kumar Gupta and Another v. Debts Recovery Tribunal Lko. Thru. Registrar Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC22 Oct 2024A227/4965/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition under Article 227, the High Court directed the DRT Patna to decide the petitioner's injunction application regarding SERFAESI Act possession proceedings by 27.12.2024 and stayed possession steps. The Court also noted the inconvenience caused by transferring DRT Lucknow's jurisdiction to Patna and asked the Central Government to justify the assignment under Section 4 of the RD

What did the court decide?

Directed DRT Patna to decide the injunction application by 27.12.2024; stay on steps for possession under Section 14 of the SERFAESI Act.

Vaibhav Kumar Gupta and Another vs Debts Recovery… — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4965 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Vaibhav Kumar Gupta And Another Respondent :- Debts Recovery Tribunal Lko. Thru. Registrar Lko. And 3 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudeep Kumar, Avdhesh Kumar Pandey, Siddhartha Kumar

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

¶8

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that the petitioner had taken a loan from the respondent no.4 and the respondent no.4 contrary to the settled position of law, initially initiated arbitration proceedings and thereafter initiated proceedings under the SERFAESI Act.

¶9

The petitioner aggrieved against the said action initiated under the SERFAESI Act, preferred an application under section 17 of the SERFAESI Act on 30.1.2023 being SA No.115 of 2023 in which the possession notice dated 18.12.2022 was challenged.

¶10

It is stated that the respondent no.4 had also approached this court by filing a petition Writ-C No.8374 of 2023 seeking direction against the District Magistrate to conclude the proceedings under section 14 of the SERFAESI Act which are pending. The writ petition filed by the respondent no.4 was decided on 13.10.2023 directing the DRT Lucknow to decide the application for stay filed by the petitioner in SA No.113 of 2023.

¶11

It is stated that as the office of the DRT Lucknow was vacant, the matter was transferred to DRT Patna in pursuance to the notification dated 17.09.2024 issued by the Government of India under section 4(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 giving additional charge of DRT Lucknow to DRT Patna. The petitioner pressed his application for stay before the DRT Patna, however, an order came to be passed fixing the matter on 27.12.2024 and it was observed that no interim order is being passed at this stage.

¶12

Thus, the neat contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that on one hand, the injunction application is not being decided

¶13

and on the other hand, steps are being taken for execution and the petitioner faces imminent threat of eviction.

¶14

Considering the order passed by the DRT, Patna wherein no order has been passed with regard to the injunction claimed by the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to direct the DRT Patna to dispose of the injunction application on merits in accordance with law by 27.12.2024. Till then, no steps shall be taken for possession under section 14 of the SERFAESI Act.

¶15

The other issue raised by the counsel for the petitioner, which is of general importance, is that by virtue of Section 4 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act 1993, the Central Government is authorized to discharge the function of Presiding Officer in addition to the charge being handed over by the concerned DRT and section 4(2)(b) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 authorizes the Central Government to assign the power of DRT to any Judicial Member holding a post in any Tribunal.

¶16

He argues that in exercise of the said powers, the charge of DRT Lucknow has been handed over to DRT Patna which is at a substantial distance and is causing huge inconvenience whereas the Central Government ought to have either assign the charge to any Tribunal in the vicinity for example - to DRT Allahabad or in the alternative to minimize the inconvenience, the Central Government ought to have assign the charge to any Judicial Member holding the post in any Tribunal established under the law at Lucknow.

¶17

The said issue prima-facie requires consideration.

¶18

As the notification has been made by the Central Government, the petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the writ petition to the Central Government Counsel who shall take instructions as to under what circumstances, the assignment has been done in favour of the DRT Patna, which is at a substantial distance causing huge inconvenience to the litigants and why the power under section 4(2) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 has not been exercised so as to minimize the inconvenience to the litigants.

¶19

The Central Government Counsel may take instructions by the next date.

¶20

List on 11.12.2024

¶21

Order Date :- 22.10.2024 VNP/-

¶22

Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vaibhav Kumar Gupta and Another v. Debts Recovery Tribunal Lko. Thru. Registrar Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vaibhav Kumar Gupta and Another v. Debts Recovery Tribunal Lko. Thru. Registrar Lko. and 3 Others

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

Tulsi Ram vs Settlement Officer Consolidation, Sitapur and 2 Others

Mohammad Sarfaraj Minor Thru. His Father Ajaj Ahmad and 11 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 8 Others

Upasana Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Govt. of U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Devi Prasad Vs Smt. Ram Kumari

M/S Axis Bank Ltd. Thru. Signatory Amrita Sloka Chandra (Known as Amrita Srivastava ) vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Lko.

Rakesh @ Sonu vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko.