Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1860 (PNJ)

Yashpal Tayal v. State of Punjab

2012-12-19

A.K.SIKRI, RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. A.K. Sikri C.J. (Oral) - The respondent bank issued notice to the petitioner under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Securitization Act’) declaring the account of the petitioner as ‘Non Performing Assets’ (NPA) w.e.f. 31.01.2012 and asking the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.2,47,85,397.77 within sixty days failing which the possession of the mortgaged property shall be taken. The said demand notice was issued by the respondent bank to the petitioner on 06.02.2012 whereas the possession notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act was issued on 20.04.2012. The respondent bank simultaneously moved application under Section 14 of the Securitization Act for police help to take possession of the mortgaged property. Apprehending that the possession of the mortgaged property may be taken at any stage with the help of the police, the present writ petition is preferred. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner has categorically stated that the petitioner does not dispute the liability. It is also submitted that the intention of the petitioner is to repay the amount which is actually due. The petitioner only wants to breath for some time to repay the amount. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if six months time is given to the petitioner, the petitioner shall be in a position to arrange the amount payable to the bank inasmuch as the amount to be paid is huge and it is not possible for the petitioner who is facing financial crunch to arrange the entire amount in one go. It is further submitted that the petitioner had visited the office of the respondent bank and informed the bank about its intention to repay the amount. However, the respondents are going ahead with their action. It is also stated that the petitioner is already in negotiation with some buyers who are willing to purchase the mortgaged property in question for handsome price out of which the entire amount outstanding against the petitioner can be easily paid. 3. Section 17 of the Securitization Act provides for the remedy as per which the petitioner can prefer appeal against the notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization Act to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The petitioner has not availed the said remedy. 3. Section 17 of the Securitization Act provides for the remedy as per which the petitioner can prefer appeal against the notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization Act to the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The petitioner has not availed the said remedy. Of course, having regard to the aforesaid averments, when the petitioner is not challenging the validity of the notices under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitization Act and is only wanting some time to repay the loan amount, we are still of the opinion that such a prayer can be made before the Debts Recovery Tribunal as well and if the Debts Recovery Tribunal feels that the move of the petitioner is bonafide, it can pass appropriate orders making some arrangement to enable the petitioner to repay the loan amount. 4. In these circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition with permission to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal within a period of two weeks from today seeking the relief which is sought in the present petition and is noted above. If the application is filed by the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered on its own merits and shall not be rejected on the ground of delay. We also stay the action of taking possession of the mortgaged property for a period of three weeks from today. However, it would be for the Debts Recovery Tribunal to pass any appropriate orders in accordance with law without being influenced by the observations made here in this order.