BADESHA RICE MILL Vs. UTTARAKHAND GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No.3713 of 2018 dtd. 14/3/2019. The appellants herein invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dtd. 9/10/2017, passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar district (the third respondent) in Case No.51 of 2017.

(2.) Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the first appellant is a partnership firm carrying on business of running a rice mill. The first respondent-Bank sanctioned a term loan of Rs.75.00 lakhs, and a cash credit facility of Rs.1.00 crore to the first appellant-firm on 31/7/2013; while the term loan was required to be repaid in 78 monthly installments, the cash credit facility was provided for a duration of 12 months to be renewed for a period of 12 months, each time, thereafter. The appellants-writ petitioners had provided security, for the term loan, by deposit of title-deeds; the appellants-writ petitioners' account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset on 30/6/2016; a notice under Sec. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (for short "the Act") was issued on 18/7/2016, followed by the proceedings, under Sec. 13(4) of the Act, on 7/12/2016; the respondent-bank filed an application, under Sec. 14 of the Act, before the Additional District Magistrate on 6/1/2017 and, thereafter, a possession notice was issued under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 , by putting a lock on the outer wall of the premises of the appellants-writ petitioners on 22/2/2018. Pursuant to an application filed by the respondent-Bank, the Additional District Magistrate passed an order on 9/10/2017, under Sec. 14 of the Act, directing delivery of possession of the appellants' premises in favour of the respondent-Bank.

(3.) Questioning both the order of the Additional District Magistrate dtd. 9/10/2017, and the Rule 8(1) notice dtd. 22/2/2018, the appellants-writ petitioners filed SA No.29 of 2018 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun (for short "DRT") under Sec. 17 of the Act; and the DRT, by its order dtd. 18/5/2018, quashed the Rule 8(1) possession notice dtd. 22/2/2018. The said order of the DRT dtd. 18/5/2018 is silent on the challenge made by the appellants-writ petitioners to the order passed by the Additional District Magistrate under Sec. 14 of the Act. While no appeal was preferred by the respondent-Bank against the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, neither did the appellants-writ petitioners question the said order in an appeal under Sec. 18 of the Act. The order of the DRT dtd. 18/5/2018 has, therefore, attained finality.