A2Z DEPARTMENTAL STORE Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners i.e. M/s A2Z Departmental Store through its proprietor Rajender Kumar (borrower) and his wife Smt. Manju, who is guarantor, with the prayer that the respondent-Bank be directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner, in view of order dtd. 24/12/2021, passed by this Court in CWP No. 8179 of 2021 and further to restrain the respondent-Bank from taking forcible physical possession of the mortgaged property, i.e. land and building comprised in Khewat No. 02, Khatauni No. 5 min, bearing Khasra No. 17 min, measuring 2B-12B min 24200/209664 share in Khewat No. 1, Khatauni No. 3 min, total area measuring 02B-13B min a share, i.e. total area from Khata0 bigha, 06 biswa, situated in village Jehu, Pargana Lachhdag, Hadbast No. 745, Tehsil Kasauli, District Solan, HP.

(2.) Petitioner No. 1 availed the total loan facility amounting to Rs.1,05,00,000.00 for the construction of commercial shop and to run departmental store. According to the petitioner, however, the total loan amount of Rs.65,00,000.00was sanctioned as Fund Based Secured OD (Canara Trade Scheme), Rs.20,00,000.00 as term loan for construction of commercial shop from the respondent-Bank for business purpose in the month of April, 2019. Petitioner No. 2 stood guarantor for petitioner No. 1 and mortgaged his residential property in favour of the respondent-Bank. The respondent Bank declared the loan account of petitioner No. 1 as NPA on 19/5/2021. Thereafter, petitioner No. 1 received notice dtd. 18/9/2021, under Sec. 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, issued by the respondent-Bank to repay the loan amount of Rs.1,10,81,288.79 within sixty days from the receipt of notice. It is contended that petitioner No. 1 was regular in making payment of all due installments, but unfortunately due to onset of Covid-19 pandemic, his business suffered loss and the repayment of loan installments became very difficult for him. However, somehow, the petitioner managed to make re-payment of loan installments till August, 2021, but due to the killing effect of the pandemic on his business, it became very difficult for him to make regular payments to the respondent-Bank for some time. It is contended that petitioner No. 1 has made proposal dtd. 20/12/2021 (Annexure P-2) to the respondent-Bank with regard to settlement of his loan account. The respondent-Bank issued notice dtd. 20/12/2021 to the petitioners to hand over possession of the mortgaged property on or before 3/1/2022. The respondent-Bank did not consider the proposal of the petitioner for one time settlement.

(3.) It is contended that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court by way of filing CWP No. 8179/2021 in a situation when Debts Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh, was not working because there was no Presiding Officer posted there. When the Court was informed that the Central Government vide Notification dtd. 13/12/2021 has entrusted the additional charge of the post of Presiding Officer of DRT-1, Chandigarh to the Presiding Officer, DRT, Jaipur, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dtd. 24/12/2021, with a liberty to the petitioners therein to move an application before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur for taking up the matter earliest, either physically or through Video Conferencing. This Court in the aforesaid order, directed the respondent-Bank not to take any coercive action against the petitioners for a period of ten days or till the matter is taken up for appropriate orders, whichever is earlier.