VISHALDEEP Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PATHANKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners assail the initiation of proceedings against them by the Hindu Co-operative Bank Limited, Pathankot, the third respondent, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Act of 2002'), and more particularly, the order dated 14.12.2020 passed by the District Magistrate, Pathankot, in exercise of power under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 for taking over physical possession of their mortgaged property.

(2.) Be it noted that the petitioners approached this Court earlier, by way of CWP No.22167 of 2020, in relation to this very cause of action and the said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 21.12.2020, relegating them to the statutory remedy available under the Act of 2002. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chandigarh, by way of an application filed under Section 17 of the Act of 2002, which was numbered as SA/1/2021.

(3.) However, by the impugned order dated 04.01.2021, the Tribunal dismissed the said application on the ground that it was premature. Perusal of the order reflects that the Tribunal was of the opinion that until and unless the petitioners actually lost their possession over the mortgaged property, they would not be entitled to invoke Section 17 of the Act of 2002. This understanding of the Tribunal ostensibly stemmed from an observation made by the Supreme Court in 'Standard Chartered Bank V/s. V. Noble Kumar and others' [(2013) 9 SCC 620].