SAH TRADERS Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the writ petitioner. Having availed a cash credit facility of Rs. 18,00,000/- from the respondent Bank on 21.10.2014 and committed default, thus, account was declared NPA on 30.06.2016, proceedings were taken under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Appellant was earlier before this Court in Writ Petition No. 291 of 2017 (MS) and it culminated in Annexure-2 judgment of this Court. By the said judgment, appellant was given the facility of paying the amount in six equal quarterly installments. Paragraph 6 of the judgment dated 21.02.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 291 of 2017 (MS) reads as follows:

(2.) It will not be out of context to notice that the appellant / petitioner, had earlier approached Debt Recovery Tribunal by filing Second Appeal No. 39 of 2017, against E-auction Notice dated 05.05.2017. Later, the petitioner seems to have filed Writ Petition No. 1140 of 2018 (MS) challenging notice under Section 13(2) dated 17.04.2018. This writ petition was disposed of by this Court directing the petitioner to deposit the amount due against it in installments. After passing of order / judgment dated 18.06.2018 in Writ Petition No. 1140 of 2018 (MS), the appellant got the Second Appeal No. 39 of 2017 dismissed as having rendered infructuous. Then, he defaulted in complying with the conditions of the judgment dated 18.06.2018, hence, the present action under Section 13(12) of the Act read with Rule 3 of the Rules.

(3.) Apparently, having defaulted in payment of the same, Annexure-1 order was passed exercising power under Section 13(4) read with Rules 8 & 9 of the Rules for sealing the residential premises. It is, accordingly, that the appellant was again before this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 1140 of 2018 (MS) seeking to quash the notice dated 17.04.2018; and seeking a mandamus to de-seal the residential house and also to recover the amount in easy installments. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on 18.06.2018. In doing so, the learned Single Judge has noted the fact that the appellant at interim stage had undertaken on 14.05.2018 to deposit the amount of Rs. 3 lacs in order to show his bona fide, but the deposit was not made. The learned Single Judge noted non-compliance of order dated 14.05.2018 and the existence of alternative remedy and dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy.