- (1.) The petitioner is the guarantor and father of respondent nos. 5 and 6 who took a cash credit limit of rupees seventy five lacs in a partnership firm known as S.R. Tractors in 2012 in which they were the partners. The petitioner stood guarantee for the cash credit limit by depositing the title deeds of his residential house no. 5/298A, Lohia Nagar Banna Devi, G.T. Road, Aligarh. It transpires that the accounts of respondent nos. 5 and 6 became NPA on 31.5.2014 pursuant to which a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') dated 2.6.2014 was issued demanding a sum of Rs. 44.92 lacs. Thereafter, symbolic possession under Section 13(4) was also taken on 29.8.2014. It further transpires that the respondent bank filed an application dated 30.10.2014 before the District Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act praying for actual physical delivery of possession. On this application, the Additional District Magistrate (F&R), respondent no. 3 issued an order dated 4.3.2015 for delivery of physical possession pursuant to which the Additional City Magistrate, respondent no. 5 issued an order dated 21.4.2015 fixing 6.5.2015 for taking physical possession. The petitioner being aggrieved by the application of the respondents under Section 14 of the Act filed an application under Section 17 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Tribunal by an order dated 1.5.2015 rejected the stay application relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Reconstruction Company Ltd. and others, 2014 6 SCC 1 on the ground that the order under Section 14 of the Act cannot be challenged on an application under Section 17 of the Act. The petitioner being aggrieved has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) We have heard Sri Sudhanshu Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Tarun Verma for the respondent bank.
(3.) Since there is no factual controversy and only a legal point has to be decided, we are proceeding to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself without calling for a counter affidavit.;