LAWS(HPH)-2012-9-97

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

Decided On September 10, 2012
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the secured creditor has a remedy before the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, if aggrieved by an order under Section 14 passed by the District Magistrate? The 3rd respondent has filed an application SA No. 193 of 2011 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Chandigarh, challenging the steps taken by the petitioner bank as per Annexure P-2, notice dated 8.4.2011, for recovery. The District Magistrate, Solan on an application under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act by the authorized officer of the Bank passed Annexure P-6, interim order dated 16.2.2012 directing not to hand over the physical possession of the property to the Bank until further orders. In the meanwhile, on 21.11.2011, The DRT directed the 3rd respondent-Bank to make deposit of Rs.50lacs before the last date of receipt of sealed tender for sale. A default clause was also added to the effect that in case deposit was not made, the Bank was free to proceed with the sale, but the confirmation was to be deferred till the next date of hearing. The matter was listed on 9.12.2011.

(2.) It is thereafter, the District Magistrate passed Annexure P-10, impugned order dated 28.3.2012. It was observed in the order that the very permission to proceed with the sale having been granted only on 6.2.2012, all the earlier applications filed on behalf of the bank were premature. In such circumstances, the parties were relegated to the DRT to work out their reliefs. Thus, the application filed by the authorized officer of the bank for possession under Section 14 was disposed of. The earlier interim order regarding handing over possession and the final order relegating the parties to DRT are under challenge, at the instance of the Bank.

(3.) Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the order passed by the DRT is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. It is further contended that the matter is now pending before the DRT, hence the petitioner may be relegated to work out the grievances before the DRT.