MEENU AGARWAL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PAURI GARHWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims to be owner of a property. The property, according to the petitioner, was mortgaged by Sri Vinay Singh Bisht its earlier owner with the District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Garhwal (Kotdwar) as security for the loan he had taken. The petitioner had no knowledge of the same, he states. Thereafter, since the loan could not be repaid, the assets of the borrower Vinay Singh Bisht were declared as Non Performing Assets.

(2.) Regarding the securitization proceedings, the borrower had also filed a writ petition before this Court, which was disposed of by this Court with the direction to deposit the loan amount in easy installments. This Court has been informed that he failed to deposit the entire amount. Subsequently the District Cooperative Bank Ltd., Garhwal (Kotdwar), which is a secured creditor as defined under Sec. 2(zd) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (from hereinafter referred to as the Act), initiated proceedings under the Act and as of now not only the possession of the property in question has been taken over by the orders of the District Magistrate but this Court has been informed that the property has also been auctioned. However, no further action has been taken as there is an interim order dtd. 21/2/2019 of this Court whereby it has been directed that the auction proceedings shall not be finalized.

(3.) The case of the petitioner before this Court is that the property on which the possession was taken by the bank by moving an application under Sec. 14 of the Act before the District Magistrate is actually under the sole ownership and possession of the petitioner. She has the title deed of the land with her and she has purchased the land from the borrower. Admittedly this was after the aforesaid loan was taken by the borrower.