AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Ms. Mounika, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P. Prakash Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent.
Petitioners are aggrieved by the notice dated 10.05.2022 issued by the Advocate Commissioner to take over physical possession of the schedule property on or before 20.05.2022 in execution of the warrant.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the Advocate Commissioner did not take over physical possession of the schedule property on 20.05.2022, the same may be taken over at any moment.
From the material on record, we find that petitioners had availed loan from the respondent, but defaulted in repayment, which necessitated the respondent to initiate the proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (briefly referred to hereinafter as the SARFAESI Act). As per the possession notice issued on 06.05.2022, the outstanding dues of the petitioners were quantified at Rs.48,70,357/-.
Be that as it may, against the action taken by the respondent under the SARFAESI Act, the petitioners have approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Hyderabad (Tribunal) by filing securitization application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, which has been numbered as S.A.No.193 of 2021. An interlocutory application has also been filed for stay being I.A.(I.R.) No.398 of 2022. With the grievance that there is no Presiding Officer in the Tribunal rendering the Tribunal non-functional, the present writ petition has been filed.
Since the petitioners have already invoked their statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, we are of the view that it would be just and appropriate, if the petitioners pursue their remedy before the Tribunal. Further, if the petitioners deposit 15% of the outstanding dues as on today within a period of 30 days from today, the respondent shall not take further steps pursuant to the notice of the Advocate Commissioner dated 10.05.2022. However, if there is any default on the part of the petitioners in making the payment as above, it would be open to the respondent to proceed against the petitioners for realization of dues in accordance with law.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.