SUNIL GARG Vs. BANK OF BARODA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (for brevity 'the Tribunal') in proceedings under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'). The Tribunal dismissed an application filed under Section 17 of the Act on the ground that such an application is not maintainable until actual physical possession is delivered to the secured creditor. It is the said order which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. The petitioner before the Tribunal was aggrieved against an order passed by the District Magistrate, dated 03.7.2017 directing him that physical possession of the property to be delivered to the secured creditor.

(2.) The relevant provisions of the Act are reproduced hereunder:

(3.) The petitioners have relied upon judgment of Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of M/s G.P. Ispat Private Limited and another Vs. Authorised Officer and Chief Manager State Bank of India and others - (W.P.C. No.1801/2015) decided on 6.12.2016 and the Full Bench judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s N.C.M.L. Industries Ltd. Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow and others (Misc. Single No.20026/2017) to argue that the petitioners do not have any remedy before the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, therefore, the order passed by the District Magistrate can be challenged only before this Court in a writ petition.