MAHALAKSHMI NAMKEEN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on I.A. No. 3633/2023, an application for urgent hearing during summer vacation.

(2.) Brief facts of the case is that the Petitioner No.1 is running business from last many years. After having defaulted facilities from the Respondent No.2, the Petitioner is subjected to coercive SARFAESI Actions Notice under Sec. 13(2) of the Act, 2002 has been issued. The Resopndetn No.2 has withdrawn the Application filed under Sec. 14 of the Act, 2002 before the Ld.ADM -Dewas. In spite of many latches and lacunas in respect of SARFAESI actions are floating on the surface of the said proceedings, the Ld. CJM, RMMP/1242/21 Dewas ex-parte allowed the Application vide order dtd. 27/4/2023 and Tehildar, Dewas has issued Eviction warrant dtd. 23/5/2023. The said order has been obtained by the Respondent No.2 by concealing material fact that earlier an application under the same provision of the Act, 2002 has been withdrawn by the Respondent; without any liberty to file any subsequent application. The Petitioners apprehend that in case the order passed by the Ld. CJM, Dewas Under Sec. 14 of the Act, 2002 dtd. 27/4/2023 for the execution of the order are not stayed then the Petitioners may lose the physical possession of their subject property. It is settled principle and practice of law that no litigant can be left remediless.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the impugned order, he has an alternative remedy of application u/S 17 of the SARFAESI Act to be filed before the DRT. However, the petitioner neither falls under the category of a borrower nor a guarantor. Therefore, the said remedy cannot be availed. Moreso, the DRT is not functional due to vacation period.