Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 671 (GAU)

Sarita Agarwal v. United Bank of India

2019-05-29

A.K.GOSWAMI, AJIT BORTHAKUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : A.K. Goswami, J. Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. 2. By this application under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have called into question the notice of intended sale dated 24.4.2019 whereby e-auction of the properties in question is fixed on 31.05.2019. A prayer for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus is also made for directing the Respondent Bank to accept the One-Time- Settlement (OTS) proposal of Rs.2.80 crores. 3. It appears from the letter addressed by the petitioner No.2 to the Assistant General Manager, SAMB, Guwahati Branch, United Bank of India on 4.11.2018 that the Manager (Recovery), United Bank of India, Regional Office, Dibrugarh had settled the amount at Rs.2,80,00,000/- and, in terms of the same, 10% of the aforesaid amount was to be paid before December, 2018 and the balance amount on installment basis within one year. The letter dated 18.12.2018 (Annexure-7) goes to show that despite repeated requests made by the authorities of the Bank, the 10% of the up front amount amounting to Rs.28,00,000/- was not paid and, therefore, it was indicated therein that the compromise proposal was rejected. 4. The petitioner No.2, on 23.2.2019, again gave a proposal, lowering the up front amount to 5%, and indicating that the said amount would be deposited within the month of April, 2019. 5. Drawing the attention to Annexure-9, which is a copy of the e-mail dated 26.3.2019, it is submitted by Mr. Nair that the said proposal submitted on 23.2.2019 as well as another proposal submitted on 25.2.2019 (copy not annexed), is under consideration of the authorities. 6. What has transpired subsequently, however, is not very clear as, thereafter, notice of intended sale dated 24.4.2019 was issued. 7. Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there are infirmities in the notice of intended sale dated 24.4.2019, as for realizing an outstanding amount of Rs.3.35 crores, four (4) plots of land, which are valued at more than Rs.5.85 cores, had been put to sale. That apart, there is primary security in the form of gold and machineries in stock-in-trade and, therefore, there can be no justification for issuing the notice dated 24.4.2019 in the present form. 8. That apart, there is primary security in the form of gold and machineries in stock-in-trade and, therefore, there can be no justification for issuing the notice dated 24.4.2019 in the present form. 8. The Debts Recovery Tribunal in terms of Section 17(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, for short, the Act of 2002, is enjoined to consider whether any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act of 2002 taken by the secured creditor for enforcement of security are in accordance with the said Act and the Rules made thereunder. The notice of intended sale was issued under Rule 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and, therefore, if the petitioners are aggrieved in any manner, they have adequate alternative efficacious remedy. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merit, we decline to invoke our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The writ petition, accordingly, stands disposed of.