LALIT KUMAR Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India prays for quashing the order dated 15.9.2015, Annexure P.6 passed by the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Delhi (in short, "the Tribunal") vide which appeal filed by him has been dismissed. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 08.04.2015, Annexure P.5 passed by the Tribunal vide which just for an amount of Rs. 2 lacs, running shops of the petitioner have been put to auction. Direction has also been sought to the respondent authorities to cancel the sale of the shops of the petitioner after receiving total loss to the bank exchequer which was Rs. 4.12 lacs out of which Rs. 2 lacs was already deposited before the Tribunal and the petitioner is ready to deposit the remaining amount with the bank along with the interest.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is a guarantor for the firm namely M/s Shubham Sarees. The two shops of the petitioner which is the subject matter of the present petition were mortgaged with the bank i.e. each shop measuring 23' in length East West and 7'7" in North South situated at Katla Nambardar, Bajaja Bazar, Narnaul. Thereafter, the petitioner went to Hyderabad to earn his livelihood. At his back, the impugned orders were passed on 08.04.2015 and 15.9.2015, Annexure P.5 and Annexure P.6 respectively. According to the petitioner, a decree was passed in favour of his mother regarding the rents which were to be received from the tenants of the shop and were to be utilised for her livelihood. It was further mutually agreed that after using the above said rent for herself the remaining amount shall be utilised for repaying the loan. Therefore, one shop was given on rent to Rekha wife of Sunil Kumar and another to Vinod Kumar son of Ram Saran. The said tenants are still in possession of the shops but due to losses in the business of the firm and the whole rent utilised by the mother, the loan could not be repaid in time. After saving some money from Hyderabad, the petitioner returned to his hometown and approached the respondent Bank to liquidate the loan and demanded the details of the loan but the bank officials refused to intimate the same. Later, the petitioner came to know that the Bank wanted to sell the above said shops to his near and dear one. The petitioner made a complaint to the Regional Manager as well as General Manager of the Bank on 02.12.2010. Instead of providing intimation regarding outstanding loan amount, the petitioner was handed over a copy of the sale certificate dated 25.11.2010, Annexure P.2 intimating that his two shops had been sold for an amount of Rs. 8,40,000.00 whereas according to the petitioner, the actual market value of the same was approximately Rs. 40 lacs. From the sale certificate, it was found that recoverable amount from the firm was Rs. 4.12 lacs on 22.8.2009 and hence the loan amount could be satisfied by selling one shop only. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. The respondent-Bank appeared and filed certain documents. The Tribunal passed interim order of status quo in favour of the petitioner subject to deposit of Rs. 2 lacs which was duly complied with by the petitioner. The respondent-Bank filed reply along with the documents regarding service of notices under section 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, "the SARFAESI Act"). The shops of the petitioner were alleged to be sold in the year 2010 but no record of the sale was produced before the Tribunal. The respondent Bank also filed demand notices under sections 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act claiming balance outstanding amount as on 31.3.2007. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply by denying all the averments taken by the respondent Bank. Vide order dated 8.4.2015, Annexure P.5, the Tribunal dismissed the application of the petitioner. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal before the Tribunal which was also dismissed vide order dated 15.9.2015., Annexure P.6. Hence the instant writ petition by the petitioner.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.