ASHOK CHOPRA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PANIPAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dtd. 30/6/2022 (Annexure P-4) passed by the District Magistrate, Panipat, under Sec. 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act') and to the E-auction sale notice dtd. 21/7/2022 (Annexure P-5).

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners had availed a loan facility from respondent No. 4 to the tune of Rs.71,46,566.00 and mortgaged their sole residential house. The petitioners were regular in payment of the loan installment from the year 2015 to October 2020 but suffered heavy losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic, as such, was unable to pay the due installment. The account of the petitioners was declared as a Non-Performing Asset on 24/3/2021 and a demand notice under Sec. 13 (2) of the Act was issued on 8/6/2021. Petitioners submitted their reply to the said demand notice on 6/7/2021 but without considering the said reply, respondent No. 4-financial institution issued a notice dtd. 21/3/2022 under Sec. 13 (4) of the Act (Annexure P-2).

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the said notice was challenged by way of filing SA-106-2022 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') (Annexure P-3). After filing of the said SA, the petitioners came to know that respondent No. 1-District Magistrate, Panipat, passed the impugned order dtd. 30/6/2022 (Annexure P-4) under Sec. 14 of the Act and respondent No. 4 issued a E-auction sale notice dtd. 21/7/2022 (Annexure P-5). The petitioners filed IA-979-2022 before the Tribunal (Annexure P-6) challenging the said orders but the same was dismissed by the Tribunal, vide order dtd. 10/8/2022 (Annexure P-7). The petitioners are ready to settle the matter and want to regularize the loan account even by way of One Time Settlement (OTS) agreement with the financial institution (respondent No. 4) and as such, the request letter (Annexure P8) was submitted. However, instead of deciding the said request letter, respondent No. 4 intend to take physical possession of the only residential house of the petitioners.