AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S Sunil Dutt Yadav, J
Petitioners have raised several contentions regarding their readiness to clear the arrears and have also raised contentions regarding valuation not being in consonance with the market value.
Sri. Vignesh Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Bank would contend that on multiple occasions, petitioners had approached this Court and no indulgence could be extended to them in light of the order passed on 26.09.2025 in W.P.No.15559/2024 along with W.P.No.25248/2024. It is further submitted that as against the validity of the sale notice, substantive remedy is available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Taking note of the contentions of the learned counsel for respondents, it would be appropriate to dispose off the writ petition as follows:
(a) Respondent - Bank is permitted to go ahead with the sale and sale confirmation. The respondent not to issue sale certificate for a period of 3 weeks from today.
(b) The protection that is granted to the petitioners is only to enable the petitioners to avail of appropriate relief in the hands of the DRT by instituting proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
(c) Upon lapse of the period of 3 weeks as aforementioned, if petitioners do not obtain appropriate orders from the DRT, the interim protection stands discharged.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. All contentions are kept open.
