KAILASHCHANDRA Vs. BRANCH MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he had taken a loan of Rs.17,60,000.00 from the respondent/Bank on 16/2/2016. He has repaid an amount of about Rs.7,77,000.00 till now but due to poor financial condition he could not be regular in the matter of payment of installments. The respondent/Bank hence appears to have initiated recovery proceedings under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (which shall be referred hereinafter as 'the Act, 2002') against the property of the petitioner.

(2.) . In those proceedings notice under Sec. 13(2) and 13(4) was allegedly issued to the petitioner but the same has never been served upon him. It is submitted that the respondent/Bank has published auction notice in the daily newspaper of Ujjain on 29/9/2021 for auction of the property of the petitioner. The petitioner has approached the bank by letter dtd. 28/10/2021 praying for grant of time to him for repayment of the loan but the said letter has not been entertained by the respondent/Bank which is going ahead with the auction of the property of the petitioner. It is hence submitted that petitioner is under threat of forcible dispossession hence has approached this Court.

(3.) . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Debt Recovery Tribunal of M.P. at present is not functional. The petitioner has a fundamental right of seeking judicial review of an order which may have any adverse consequences against him. However, it is seen that the petitioner has not yet approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal at Jabalpur to challenge the action of the respondent/Bank.