MAA SHAKUM BHARI SYNTHETIC LTD Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice on behalf of opposite party has been accepted by Sri Vinay Shankar, Advocate.

(2.) By means of present writ petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.5.2011, passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in S.A. No. 268 of 2011, as contained in Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition by which application for interim relief was rejected by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Petitioner also challenges the advertisement published by the Respondent Bank in daily newspaper Dainik Jagaran it its edition dated 10.5.2011 in so far as the same relates to the auction of the properties of the Petitioner company. Petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondent bank not to proceed further in the matter of sale of the property situated at B-56, Sector 10, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar till the decision of S.A. No. 268 of 2011, pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow.

(3.) Submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that no notice under Sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 2002') was ever served upon the Petitioner nor the same was affixed on the residence or on business place of the Petitioner nor any paper publication of notice has been made by the Respondent. The Petitioner approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal by means of S.A. No. 268 of 2011 against the measure taken by the Respondent Bank under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 alongwith the application for interim relief. The said application was rejected by means of the order dated 31.5.2011and fixed 25.8.2011 for further orders. In the meantime, the Respondent Bank proceeded to auction the property of the Petitioner-company and got published an advertisement in daily newspaper on 10.5.2011 fixing the last date for submission of the bids on 14.6.2011 and 15.6.2011 for opening of bids. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Petitioner has taken various grounds in his appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal which is yet to be adjudicated by the Tribunal and if in the meantime, the property of company is allowed to be auctioned, the pending appeal would be rendered infructuous causing serious prejudice to the Petitioner.