SATPAL ENTERPRISES Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the impugned order dated 01.04.2021 (P-5) passed by the District Magistrate, Faridabad, whereby receiver was appointed to take physical possession of secured assets/mortgaged property in the name of petitioner No.2.

(2.) Succinctly, the petitioner-firm had taken a term loan of Rs. 30 lakhs and also availed a cash credit limit of Rs. 10 lakhs from the respondent-Bank in the month of April, 2017 against immovable property owned and possessed by petitioner No.2 bearing Khata No.50/47, Mustkel No.175, Killa No.23(8-0), 24 (8-0), Mustkel No.187, Killa No.3/2(5-0), 4/1 (7-7), 4/2(0-13) situated at Palli Ballabgarh Road, Faridabad. The petitioner-firm was regularly paying the installments of the loan amount upto 30.06.2019. Thereafter, due to default of the petitioners in payment of installments of the above-said loan amount, respondent-Bank declared the loan accounts of the petitioner-firm as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). The respondent-Bank issued notice dated 06.07.2019 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Subsequently, the respondent-Bank in the light of notice dated 06.07.2019 filed an application dated 26.02.2020 (P-3) before the District Magistrate, Faridabad, seeking possession of the secured asset of the petitioner-firm in terms of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Vide impugned order dated 01.04.2021 (P-5) , the District Magistrate, Faridabad appointed a receiver to take possession of the secured assets of the petitioner-firm.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-firm submits that the petitioner-firm had taken loan of Rs. 40 lakhs only out of which the petitionerfirm had already repaid Rs. 36,23,609/- but the respondent-Bank is adamant to take the possession of the secured assets of the petitioner No.2, who is guarantor of the said loan amount. He further submits that the the petitioner-firm is ready to repay the outstanding amount along with simple interest, if some reasonable time is provided for this purpose. He finally submits that the impugned order dated 01.04.2021 (P-5) has been passed without following the provisions of law and without appreciating the unavoidable circumstances of the petitioner-firm and, thus, the same is liable to be quashed.