ASHOK DANDAPAT Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application is at the instance of the petitioners and is directed against the order dated August 5, 2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debt Recovery Tribunal- II, Kolkata in S.A. No.303 of 2010 thereby dismissing an application of the petitioners in limine.

(2.) THE short fact is that the petitioners obtained a loan of Rs.9 lakh from the Punjab National Bank, Kharagpore I.I.T. Branch in the year 2004 and 2005 against security, that is, the property of the petitioners under Holding No.10/C/9, Ward No.27 under Kharagpore Municipality, District Paschim Medinipur. THE petitioners built a house thereon. THE petitioners repaid a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- up to the April 2008. THEy could not repay the loan more due to the ill health of the petitioner no.1. THEn the bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 on February 14, 2008 subsequently a notice under Section 13(4) of the said Act on May 3, 2008. THE petitioners informed the bank of the fact that they were unable to make payments regularly and to allow them to sell a part of the house of the said building which was constructed by taking the loan. THEreafter, the bank issued another notice on December 3, 2008 for taking possession-cumauction sale of the property under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. THE petitioners filed a suit being O.S. No.189 of 2009 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Medinipur on August 7, 2009 challenging the arbitrary proceedings of the petitioners, but the bank held an auction on August 11, 2009. Ultimately, the property was sold by auction without giving an opportunity to the plaintiff. THE bank sought help from the District Magistrate for taking physical possession of the secured asset of the borrower and the secured creditor got assistance from the District Magistrate for police protection for obtaining physical possession of the house of the borrower. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, I am of the view that this application is devoid of merits and so, it should be dismissed. The revisional application is, therefore, dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.