Petitioner failed to deposit the court-directed amount for stay of bank recovery proceedings under SARFAESI Act. With Debts Recovery Tribunal now functional, writ petition dismissed as statutory remedy is available.
Interim order dated 14.02.2022 vacated; writ petition dismissed to allow approach under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010021892022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/895/2022
SANTOSH KUMAR PRASAD
S/O- HARE KRISNAN PRASAD, PROPRIETOR OF SANTOSH ENTERPRISE, R/O- GOGAMUKH, MACHGAONCHARIALI, PO AND PS-GOGAMUKH, DISTDHEMAJI,PIN- 787034
VERSUS
THE CANARA BANK AND ANR. DHEMAJI, 787057
2:THE BRANCH MANAGER CANARA BANK DHEMAJI BRANCH DHEMAJI-78705
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MAZUMDER
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CANARA BANK
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
Oral
05.04.2022
Heard Ms. D. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent Bank.
Page No.# 2/3
The petitioner had taken a loan from the respondent Bank, which could not be repaid in time and consequently, the account was declared as NPA. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated by the respondent Bank against the petitioner under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) for recovery of the loan amount with interest.
At this stage, the petitioner had approached this Court. The writ petition was entertained by this Court as the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati was not functional at that relevant point of time to its full strength as there was no Presiding Officer.
By an order dated 14.02.2022, we had asked the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) with the respondent Bank on or before 28.02.2022 and had stayed further proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank against the petitioner.
Today, we have been told that the amount as directed by this Court has not been deposited by the petitioner with the respondent Bank. In view thereof, the interim order passed on 14.02.2022 stands vacated.
Moreover, we have been informed by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties that the Presiding Officer has already been joined and now the Debts Recovery Tribunal is functional.
Under these circumstances, we dismiss the present writ petition on the ground that a statutory remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal. However, we make it very clear that dismissal of the present writ petition will not prejudice the case of the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and his case shall be
Page No.# 3/3
decided on its own merit.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging SARFAESI proceedings must be allowed when the Debts Recovery Tribunal is not functional.
Whether a statutory remedy is available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act when the Debts Recovery Tribunal becomes functional.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Santosh Kumar Prasad
The Canara Bank
Soumitra Saikia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
