Cwp No. 22731 of 2012 (Oandm) Vs. State of Punjab and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1056645
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnDec-17-2012
AppellantCwp No. 22731 of 2012 (Oandm)
RespondentState of Punjab and Others
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh cwp no.22731 of 2012 (o&m) date of decision:17. 12.2012 jaspal singh and another ...petitioners versus state of punjab and others ..respondents. coram: hon'ble mr.justice a.k.sikri, chief justice. hon'ble mr.justice rakesh kumar jain. present : ms.navdeep, advocate, for the petitioners.**** a.k.sikri c.j.(oral) cm nos.17909 & 17638 of 2012 documents enclosed with the applications are taken on record subject to all just exceptions and both the applications are disposed of. cwp no.22731 of 2012 (o&m) the petitioners herein had obtained home loan of ` 11.50 lacs from icici home finance company ltd.it seems that the said icici bank assigned all its rights to respondent no.5 bank i.e.kotak mahindra bank (ltd.) to reschedule the loan. however, on the ground that the petitioners had not made the payment of certain installments and the account became irregular, the respondent bank issued notice under section 13(2) of the securitization and reconstruction of financial assets & enforcement of security interest act, 2002 (for short 'the securitization act') in respect of the mortgaged property calling upon the petitioners to clear their loan amount within sixty days. the amount demanded from the petitioners was ` 24,91,567/- in the said notice.”2. it is the case of the petitioners that thereafter they approached the officers of the bank for settlement of the case under 'one time settlement scheme' (ots scheme) but no response is given thereto and instead the respondent bank has not approached the district magistrate, cwp no.22731 of 2012 (o&m) [2].amritsar for providing police help to take the possession of the mortgaged property. challenging that order, the present petition is filed, inter-alia, on the ground that there could not have been any action without issuance of notice under section 13(4) of the securitization act. it is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are ready to settle the loan account under the ots scheme with the bank.”3. in case, the petitioners have any grievance against the action taken by the respondent bank under the securitization act, the remedy of appeal under section 17 thereof is provided whereunder it is open for the petitioners to move appropriate application before the debts recovery tribunal (drt) having jurisdiction in the matter.”4. having regard to this statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioners.it would not be necessary at this stage to entertain this petition and the petitioners are relegated to avail the statutory remedy before the debts recovery tribunal. accordingly, on moving an application under the securitization act before the debts recovery tribunal within 15 days from today, the debts recovery tribunal shall consider the said application on its own merits. as an interim measure, however, we stay the impugned action of the respondents for a period of three weeks from today. we, however, make it clear that the debts recovery tribunal shall be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and to decide as to whether this stay is to be extended or not. with petition is disposed of in the above terms.(a.k.sikri) chief justice 17 12.2012 (rakesh kumar jain) 'ravinder' judge
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.22731 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision:

17. 12.2012 Jaspal Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents.

CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE.

HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN.

Present : Ms.Navdeep, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.**** A.K.SIKRI C.J.(Oral) CM Nos.17909 & 17638 of 2012 Documents enclosed with the applications are taken on record subject to all just exceptions and both the applications are disposed of.

CWP No.22731 of 2012 (O&M) The petitioners herein had obtained home loan of ` 11.50 lacs from ICICI Home Finance Company LTD.It seems that the said ICICI bank assigned all its rights to respondent No.5 bank i.e.Kotak Mahindra Bank (Ltd.) to reschedule the loan.

However, on the ground that the petitioners had not made the payment of certain installments and the account became irregular, the respondent bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Securitization Act') in respect of the mortgaged property calling upon the petitioners to clear their loan amount within sixty days.

The amount demanded from the petitioners was ` 24,91,567/- in the said notice.”

2. It is the case of the petitioners that thereafter they approached the officers of the bank for settlement of the case under 'One Time Settlement Scheme' (OTS Scheme) but no response is given thereto and instead the respondent bank has not approached the District Magistrate, CWP No.22731 of 2012 (O&M) [2].Amritsar for providing police help to take the possession of the mortgaged property.

Challenging that order, the present petition is filed, inter-alia, on the ground that there could not have been any action without issuance of notice under Section 13(4) of the Securitization Act.

It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are ready to settle the loan account under the OTS Scheme with the bank.”

3. In case, the petitioners have any grievance against the action taken by the respondent bank under the Securitization Act, the remedy of appeal under Section 17 thereof is provided whereunder it is open for the petitioners to move appropriate application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) having jurisdiction in the matter.”

4. Having regard to this statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioneRs.it would not be necessary at this stage to entertain this petition and the petitioners are relegated to avail the statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Accordingly, on moving an application under the Securitization Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within 15 days from today, the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall consider the said application on its own merits.

As an interim measure, however, we stay the impugned action of the respondents for a period of three weeks from today.

We, however, make it clear that the Debts Recovery Tribunal shall be at liberty to proceed with the matter in accordance with law and to decide as to whether this stay is to be extended or not.

With petition is disposed of in the above terMs.(A.K.SIKRI) CHIEF JUSTICE 17 12.2012 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 'ravinder' JUDGE