PRATEEK AGARWAL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2881 of 2019 dated 20.09.2019. The appellant herein filed the said Writ Petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 07.06.2015 passed by the first respondent directing the second respondent to take over physical possession of the residential house/property of the appellant-writ petitioner mortgaged with respondents 2 and 3; a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to restore possession of the residential house/property of the appellant-writ petitioner to him, along with all household articles; a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 to accept the reserve price as stated in the advertisement dated 30.08.2019, or to re-pay the amount in installments; and a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 and 3 not to proceed with the auction in respect of the residential house/property as stated in the advertisement dated 30.08.2019.

(2.) Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the appellantwrit petitioner, the Director of M/s Manokamna Steel Private Limited and the guarantor for the loan extended to the said company, had mortgaged his residential house as security for the loan extended to the said company. In the year 2011, the borrower company s account was declared as a non-performing asset and, at that time, the total liability of the borrower company stood at Rs. 6,95,00,000/-. A notice under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act was issued, including with regards the residential property which had been mortgaged with the respondent-bank. Symbolic possession of the mortgaged asset was taken on 23.03.2011. An application was filed, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, by the respondent-Bank before the first respondent in the year 2015; and the said application, filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, was allowed on 07.06.2015. The appellant-writ petitioner states that he came to know of the said order when the bank officials came to take physical possession of his house on 18.09.2019.

(3.) Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner, would submit that it is on this date i.e. 18.09.2019 that the appellant-writ petitioner was dis-possessed from his residential house. The appellant-writ petitioner claims to have questioned the said advertisement, issued by the respondent-Bank for auction of the mortgaged property, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow and though, initially, an interim order of stay was granted, the said application, on its being transferred to the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Derhadun, was dismissed.