AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ashok Menon, Chairperson
The matter is taken up for hearing by way of Praecipe dated 10. 08.2022 filed by the Appellant seeking urgent relief.
Securitization Application (S.A.) No.151/2022 is filed by the borrowers challenging the measures taken under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Act, 2002 (the SARFAESI Act for short) by the Appellant (formerly M/s. Divan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd.), a Financial Institution entitle to take proceedings under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Various grounds have been raised in the S.A. challenging the Sarfaesi measures. When I.A. No. 637/2022 came up for consideration before the learned Presiding Officer, D.R.T., Nagpur, on 25.07.2022, the learned Presiding Officer directed the applicant therein to pay a sum of Rs. One Crore, and on deposit of that amount, the secured assets, which have been already taken possession by the secured creditor, were directed to be restored to the Applicants in the S.A.
Under section 17(3) of the SARFAESI Act, the D.R.T. is empowered to restore the possession of the secured assets which has been wrongly taken possession of. But for that, there must be a finding that Sarfaesi measures were defective and that the S.A. has to be allowed for that reason. In the instance case, the power to restore possession u/s 17(3) (c) was invoked by the learned P.O. as an interlocutory measure, pending consideration of the S.A., which I find is prima-face, not sustainable. Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 25.07.2022 does not appear to the proper and is, therefore, stayed. The Respondents have appeared and are at liberty to file a reply to the Appeal, which, I am told is being filed today.
In view of this order, I find that S.A. itself can be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, and the Ld. P.O. is directed to dispose of S.A. No. 151/2022 after considering all relevant issues regarding the insufficiency of the Sarfaesi measures taken by the Respondents. And in case the S.A. is allowed, the P.O. is at liberty to restore possession invoking Section 17(3), but it cannot be granted as interim relief.
Considering the fact that the concern belonging to the borrower has now stopped functioning in view of the taking over of the possession by the secured creditor, and the employees therein have been rendered jobless, endeavour shall be made by the Ld. P.O. to dispose of the S.A. as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of one month of receipt of a copy of this order.
With these observations, the Appeal is disposed of.
All Miscellaneous Applications, if any, are dismissed as infructuous.
Reply which has been filed today is taken on record.