- (1.) INSTANT petition is directed against the auction proceedings initiated by the secured creditor after securitization application No.24/2010 filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by the Debt Recovery Tribunal vide order dated 23.4.2010 as his counsel pleaded no instructions.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits after the securitization application came to be rejected by the Tribunal vide order impugned dated 23.4.2010, immediately application was filed for recalling/restoration of the securitization application with the request that the matter may be heard on merits. Although on application filed by the petitioner seeking recalling/restoration of the securitization application, the Tribunal issued notice to the lawyer who appeared on his behalf but as there was no stay operating during the intervening period, the respondents initiated auction proceedings with respect to the mortgaged property of the petitioner, thus at that stage, he was left with no option but to approach this Court so as to safeguard his interest. As alleged in the writ petition, the petitioner who is principal borrower took housing loan of Rs.3 lacs, but on account of some default being committed, his account became NPA on 31.7.2008. Thereafter, notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 came to be served upon the petitioner and in furtherance thereof, proceedings were initiated under Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002. At that stage, the petitioner approached the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act by filing securitization application along with application for grant of interim relief, however, the same came to be rejected by the Tribunal vide order dated 23.4.2010 as the counsel pleaded no instruction and that appears to be a reason for which the petitioner rushed to this Court obviously to protect his rights which are available to him under the law. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that after the auction proceedings being initiated by the respondents, the petitioner has approached this Court and while issuing notice, interim protection was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 28.6.2010. But he has not paid a single penny even prior thereto and after grant of interim protection to him, the petitioner is sitting tight over the matter as he has not paid the outstanding amount which became due for payment. This Court also finds substance that if the petitioner was a defaulter, certainly the proceedings could be initiated against him under the Act of 2002 and remedy was available to the petitioner by filing application under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 before the Tribunal. But from the material which has come on record, it appears that the securitization application filed by the petitioner was not heard on merits and that came to be rejected as his counsel pleaded no instructions. But taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already moved application for recalling/restoration of the securitization application and at the same time, he has not paid a penny against outstanding dues payable, this Court considers it appropriate that if the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.75,000/- within a period of one month, the securitization application No.24/2010 filed before the Tribunal shall be restored and the parties may appear before the Tribunal on 23.4.2012 and it is expected from the Tribunal to hear the application filed by the petitioner for grant of interim protection on merits expeditiously. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner fails to deposit the amount, as indicated above, the secured creditor will be free to initiate further proceedings in accordance with law.
(3.) WITH these directions/observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.;