Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:43889 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No. 3872 of 2025 Tata Capital Limited (Erstwhile Known As Tata Capital Financial Services Limited) Through Its Authorised Signatory Rahul Kumar Gaukhede S/o B.P. Gaurkhede Having Its Registered Office Tower A, 11th Floor, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 And One Of Its Branch Offices At 3rd Floor, Block- B, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh- 492001. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal Allahabd, 9/2 A, Panna Lal Road Allahabad 211002 Uttar Pradesh. 2 - Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur, 10, Civil Lines Road, Housing Board Colony, Prestige Town, South Civil Lines, Jabalpur 482001 Madhya Pradesh. 3 - Lal Chand Umar Vaishy S/o Late Chedilal Umar Vaishy R/o 194, Ward No. 26, Camp 2, Fal Mandi Surya Nagar, Bhilai-1, Bhilai- 490001 Also At Block No. A 4, Plot No. 17 And 18 Situated At Nagar Palika, Nigam Bhilai, Vijay Complex, Vyavasayik Yojna Camp- 2, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh- 490001.
Legal Reasoning
4 - Smt. Chaya Devi Umar Vaishy W/o Lal Chand Umar Vaishy R/o 194, Ward No. 26, Camp 2, Fal Mandi Surya Nagar, Bhilai-1, Bhilai- 490001 Also At Block No. A 4, Plot No. 17 And 18 Situated At Nagar Palika, Nigam Bhilai, Vijay Complex, Vyavasayik Yojna Camp- 2, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh- 490001. VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR Date: 2025.08.29 17:44:49 +0530 2 5 - Gulab Chand Umar Vaishy S/o Late Chedilal Umar Vaishya R/o 194, Ward No. 26, Camp 2, Fal Mandi Surya Nagar, Bhilai-1, Bhilai- 490001 Also At Block No. A 4, Plot No. 17 And 18 Situated At Nagar Palika, Nigam Bhilai, Vijay Complex, Vyavasayik Yojna Camp- 2, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh- 490001. 6 - Kapoor Chand Umar Vaishy S/o Late Chedilal Umar Vaishy R/o 194, Ward No. 26, Camp 2, Fal Mandi Surya Nagar, Bhilai-1, Bhilai- 490001 Also At Block No. A 4, Plot No. 17 And 18 Situated At Nagar Palika, Nigam Bhilai, Vijay Complex, Vyavasayik Yojna Camp- 2, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh- 490001. 7 - Ramji Shah S/o Shivji Shah R/o 319/k, Maroda Taink School Para, Ward No. 61, Civic Centre Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh, 490006. ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Advocate For Respondents No.3 to 6 : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 29/08/2025 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. By way of this petition, petitioner sought following relief(s) : “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and direct the respondent no. 1 to decide the petitioner's appeal being no. Diary No. 274 of 2022 pending before the DRAT, Allahabad within such outer limit as the court may deem fit in the light of facts and circumstances of the case. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records of the instant case and of land for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 3 10.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioners in the interest of justice.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Petitioner Company is Non-Banking Finance Company Incorporated under the Companies Act and is a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) in terms of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. The respondent nos. 3 to 6 availed a secured loan from the Petitioner and defaulted in its repayment. The Petitioner took measure under the SARFAESI Act for the enforcement of the Security Interest created by the said respondents in favor of the Petitioner. The respondent nos. 3 to 6 approached the Ld. DRT, Jabalpur challenging the measure taken by the Petitioner under SARFAESI Act. In view of the non-functioning of the Ld. DRT Jabalpur for an interregnum period, the respondent nos. 3 to 6 also approached this Hon'ble High Court in a writ being W.P.C 688 of 2022. The Petitioner issued its sale notice in accordance with the SARFAESI Act thereby scheduling a public auction sale on 04-02-2022 between 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. The said auction was conducted successfully, and the respondent no. 7 was identified as the Highest bidder in the auction with the bid of Rs. 1,34,25,000/-(Rupees One Crore Thirty-Four Lakh Twenty-Five Thousand Only). Post conclusion of the auction, the Petitioner received an intimation through e-mail at about 3:52 p.m. sent by the respondents' (Respondent nos. 3 to 6) advocate informing the 4 Petitioner about an order passed by Hon'ble High Court on 04-02-2022 itself whereby the respondent nos. 3 to 6 have been granted a grace period of 15 days to make a payment of Rs.75,00,000/- to the Petitioner and the said order further carried a direction for the Petitioner to not finalize the said sale in the event the respondents comply to the payment condition made in the said order of the Hon'ble High Court. The said order also clarified that in the event the payment is not made within the directed period, the protection granted to the respondent nos, 3 to 6 would cease to operate. Much after the expiry of the aforesaid protection period of 15 days, the Petitioner proceeded to finalize the sale in favor of the Respondent no. 7 on 04-04-2022. However, long after the conclusion of the sale, the Petitioner was in shock to receive an order dated 09-05-2025 passed by the DRT, Jabalpur thereby granting a further period of 15 days to the respondents nos. 3 to 6 to make the said payment of Rs.75,00,000/- and the said order further carried a direction for the petitioner to release the property in favor of respondents nos. 3 to 6 in case the respondents (Respondent nos. 3 to 6) succeeds in making the directed payment. As the Petitioner had lawfully sold the Secured Asset in favor of the Respondent no. 7 much before the passing of the said order of the DRT, Jabalpur on 09-05-2025, the performance cum compliance of the said order by the Petitioner was purely impossible. The Petitioner 5 preferred an appeal under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRAT Allahabad which has remained unadjudicated for substantially long period, specifically for about 3 years since its filing (date of filing-08-06-2022). The resulting delayed has been causing irreparable financial as well as reputational loss to the Petitioner Company. Hence the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court praying for issuance of appropriate writ. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts of the case, submission made by counsel for the respective parties and looking to the grievance raised by petitioner. Considering the provisions of Section 20(6) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 which is as under : “20 (6). The appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (1) shall be dealt with by it as expeditiously as possible and endeavour shall be made by it to dispose of the appeal finally within six months from the date of receipt of the appeal.”
Decision
7. In view of the above, it is directed to respondent No.1- Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad (Uttar Pradesh) to decide the appeal 6 filed by the petitioner expeditiously preferably within an outer limit of ‘06 months’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. 8. With the aforesaid direction, the instant petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant