AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is noticed that the petition is preferred against an order of the tribunal rejecting the appeal filed against an order passed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The tribunal has dismissed the application relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar Vs. International Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd. and Others, . The said decision of the Supreme Court pertains to a tenant who was in occupation of premises and when he was in threat of dispossession, the Supreme Court having opined that such tenants in possession under valid agreement would be protected unless vacated by recourse of due process of law and such tenants should seek protection before the concerned Magistrate. This could not have been applied to the present petitioner who was a borrower. Therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by such an order of the tribunal, it is for him to prefer an appeal before the DRAT and the present petition would not have been filed. This court however had entertained the petition and even granted an order of stay on 16.4.2015 which has been subsequently extended. This was impermissible in view of the Supreme Court also having laid down in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others, wherein the Supreme Court even chastised the High Courts in entertaining the petitions pertaining to the SARFAESI Act. It is for the petitioner therefore to approach the appellate authority on whatever grounds he seeks to question the order of the tribunal. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeking to make a fervent plea that he would settle the entire debt if he is given 15 days time and that he can do with the bank as well. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of as not maintainable. The interim order granted earlier stands vacated.