RASHMI VERMA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE RAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge is against the correctness and sustainability of the verdict passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the petitioner/ appellant has been relegated to move the statutory authority i.e. 'Debt Recovery Tribunal', if at all she is aggrieved in any manner with regard to course and proceedings in connection with the steps taken for realization of the amount due to the respondent No.2-Bank.

(2.) Heard Shri Ashish Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Sudeep Agrawal, Deputy Advocate General for the State and Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate for the respondent No.2-Bank.

(3.) The sequence of events revealed from the proceedings shows that as per sale deed registered on 7.4.2012, the appellant herein had purchased the rights and interest over the flat concerned, constructed by the 3rd respondent-Builder, in the property with undivided rights to the requisite extent as therein. According to the appellant, the purchase was effected after satisfying the sale consideration and the appellant was enjoying the property, though construction is to be completed to some extent. It is stated that the 3rd respondent Builder had availed a loan from the 2nd respondent Bank on the strength of the landed property where the construction has been effected. Repayment to the 2nd respondent Bank was not effected on time and the 3 rd respondent Builder turned to be 'defaulter', under which circumstance, the 2 nd respondent Bank proceeded with the steps under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (henceforth 'the Act of 2002') for realization of the amount due. Later, in the course of proceedings, the rights and interest of the 2nd respondent Bank came to be conveyed to the 4 th respondent, which is an 'Asset Reconstruction Company' as defined under Section 2 (ba) of the Act of 2002, who took over the 'symbolic possession' of the flat concerned and filed a petition before the 1st respondent, in terms of Section 14 of the Act of 2002, so as to enable them to proceed with further steps including by way of auction, after getting the 'physical possession' of the flat concerned. Objection was filed from the part of the appellant herein, which however was not considered and the 1st respondent passed the order in favour of the 4th respondent herein. This was sought to be challenged by filing writ petition before this Court, mainly contending that the 4 th respondent herein would not come within the purview of the term 'Bank' as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Act of 2002 or 'Secured Creditor' as defined under Section 2 (zd) of the Act of 2002.