2019 (10) TMI 805 - HC - Indian Laws

Recovery of unpaid loan amount - account of the petitioner was declared as Non Performing Assets - SARFAESI Act - HELD THAT - The petitioner has already filed an appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Meanwhile, a recovery citation dated 06.08.2019 has been issued by the Tehsildar, Haridwar against the petitioner, which the petitioner has now challenged before this Court - In view of this Court, the same is liable to be challenged by the petitioner before the Debts Recovery Tribunal itself and nothing can be done by this Court in the writ petition. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Loan default leading to account declared as Non Performing Assets (NPA)
2. Proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
3. Writ petition filed by the petitioner
4. Appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal
5. Challenge of recovery citation issued by Tehsildar before the High Court

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the case where the petitioner defaulted on a loan from the respondent Bank, resulting in the account being classified as a Non Performing Asset (NPA). Subsequently, the bank initiated proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (the Act) for loan recovery. A writ petition (M/S) No. 146 of 2017 was filed by the petitioner, which was earlier disposed of by the Court directing the petitioner to approach the statutory authority under Section 17 of the Act.

The petitioner has already appealed under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. However, a recovery citation issued by the Tehsildar against the petitioner prompted the present writ petition challenging the same before the High Court. The Court held that such challenges should be raised before the Debts Recovery Tribunal itself, indicating that the High Court cannot intervene in this matter through a writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed in limine.

Furthermore, the petitioner's counsel requested the return of documents submitted to the respondents. The Court granted the petitioner the liberty to file an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for the return of documents, ensuring that the application would be considered in accordance with the law. This aspect highlights the procedural route for addressing document-related matters in the context of loan recovery proceedings.