Siddharth Jain vs Hdfc Bank Limited

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging action of the respondent Bank to take possession of the mortgaged property in pursuance of the Possession Notice dated 17th August, 2019 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 (for short "the Rules of 2002").

The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the Notice dated 5 th August, 2017 and subsequent notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "SARFAESI Act").

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that action of the respondent Bank is not only arbitrary but illegal also. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has, in fact, deposited the amount, as demanded by the respondent Bank from time to time and at one point of time, he had deposited Rs.22,68,689.97/-.

Learned counsel submitted that request for regularisation of loan was made from time to time but the respondent Bank did not take any action and by the impugned actions, the property of the petitioner, which has been mortgaged, is being put to auction and further possession has also been taken.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Reserve Bank of India has introduced several schemes to settle the outstanding account or Non Performance Account (NPA) and as such, the respondent Bank was required to consider the request of the petitioner for regularising the loan account.

On 16th September, 2019, this Court asked learned counsel for the petitioner to serve copy of the writ petition in the office of learned counsel Mr.Alok Garg, who represents the respondent Bank.

Learned counsel Mr.Alok Garg has appeared for the respondent Bank and submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable before this Court in view of the decision passed by this Court on 7th March, 2019 in the case of Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.4219/2019).

Learned counsel submitted that if the petitioner has grievance, the proper remedy is required to be availed by him under the SARFAESI Act by filing proper application.

Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent Bank has given adequate opportunity to the petitioner to repay the loan amount and since, the petitioner did not repay the amount, action was taken by the respondent-Bank by invoking Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Learned counsel further submitted that the Possession Notice has been issued under Rule 8(1) of the Rules of 2002.

On instructions, learned counsel for the respondent Bank Mr.Alok Garg submitted that only symbolic possession has been taken so far and actual possession of both the properties is still with the petitioner. If the petitioner approaches the right Forum for redressal of his grievance, appropriate Court/Authority can always look into the grievance.

Learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, has tried to convince this Court by seeking a direction against the respondent Bank to accept the some amount for adjustment and as such, request is made to direct the respondent Bank for not taking any action further after issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and Notice dated 17th August, 2019.

This Court finds that the writ petition itself is not maintainable before this Court in view of the order passed by this Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra).

As regards the grievance of the petitioner that he is ready to pay the amount and the outstanding amount can also be settled by way of negotiation, this Court thinks it proper to observe that if the petitioner approaches the respondent Bank with the proposal to pay the amount and if the respondent Bank finds that the offer, so made by the petitioner, can be accepted, the respondent Bank is free to proceed to settle the matter as per the RBI guidelines.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.