Mr. Arun Batta and Mr. Abdul Vahid, Advocates v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

Through: Mr. Anmol Panwar, Mr. Praveen Shashi Ranjan, and Mr. Ware Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN % O R D E R 18.03.2025 CM APPL. 15669/2025 (filed by petitioner seeking appropriate orders)

1. The present application has been filed by the petitioner seeking following relief: “(a) allow the present application and pass appropriate directions thereby reviving the Writ Petition to its original number and directing the Respondent not to proceed with any coercive action/ auction of the mortgaged property.”

2. Mr. Arun Batta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner invites attention of the Court to the order dated 12.03.2025 to contend that the petitioner had had decided not to press his present writ petition any further only if he is permitted to approach the respondent bank again with a fresh request. The petitioner had thus, sought a direction to the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/03/2025 at 12:21:40 bank to consider its proposal without being prejudiced by the background facts, in accordance with law.

3. He submits that the learned counsel for the respondent bank had stated that without prejudice to their rights and contentions, the respondent has no objection to the proposal mooted by the petitioner.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 12.03.2025, the relevant part of which reads thus: “1. After hearing arguments for some time, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner would not press his present writ petition any further if he is permitted to approach the respondent-bank again with a fresh request. He only seeks a direction to the bank to consider such proposal without being prejudiced to the background facts and to consider the same in accordance with law.

2. Learned counsel for respondent-bank, without prejudice to their rights and contentions, has no objection to the aforesaid proposal.

3. In view of the aforesaid, present writ petition is disposed of as not pressed.

4. Petitioner is, simultaneously, at liberty to approach the respondent bank with a fresh proposal. In case any such proposal is submitted by the petitioner within ten days from today, it will be upto to the respondent-bank to consider the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of submission of aforesaid representation/proposal.”

5. He submits that after the aforesaid order was passed by this Court on

12.03.2025, the petitioner vide letter dated 15.03.2025 had informed the respondent bank that since there are ensuing holidays and the petitioner’s Chartered Accountant is not available, therefore, the proposal will be This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/03/2025 at 12:21:40 submitted in a week’s time.

6. He submits that in complete defiance of the order dated 12.03.2025, the respondent bank made an endorsement on the aforesaid letter of the petitioner to the effect that the restructuring cannot be accepted since the unit of the petitioner is not operational/running since inception. It was further observed that the earlier request of the petitioner was declined on the same ground as per extant norms of the Bank/Reserve Bank of India. It was also mentioned that the mortgaged property is on public auction on

19.03.2025.

7. In view of the above, issue notice. Mr. Anmol Panwar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent bank accepts notice.

8. Mr. Panwar submits that earlier also the petitioner had filed a similar writ petition being W.P.(C) 7020/2022 and some of the prayers in the said writ petition are identical to the prayers made in the present writ petition.

9. He further submits that the writ petition itself was not maintainable, in as much as remedy available to the petitioner is under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’ for short), which has actually been availed by the petitioner by filing an application being SA/11/2024 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

10. He also invites attention of the Court to the order dated 15.01.2024 passed by the learned DRT to contend that an application filed by the petitioner seeking interim relief in the said SA was declined by the learned DRT.

11. He further contends that public auction of the mortgaged property is scheduled on 19.03.2025 and two bids have also been received. He, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/03/2025 at 12:21:40 therefore, urges the Court that the present application may be dismissed.

12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant as well as learned counsel for the respondent/non-applicant.

13. A reading of the order dated 12.03.2025 makes it apparent that the petitioner had not pressed his writ petition only when the learned counsel for the respondent gave a concession to the effect that the proposal of the petitioner will be considered by the respondent bank. Even while disposing the writ petition, this Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent bank with a fresh proposal with an observation that in case any such proposal is submitted by the petitioner within ten days from the date of the order, it will be upto the respondent bank to consider the same in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of submission of such proposal.

14. Intriguingly, the learned counsel for the respondent had not brought to the notice of the Court that the public auction is scheduled on 19.03.2025 and that the bids have been received from the prospective buyers.

15. Be that as it may, once the writ petition has been disposed of on a concession made by the learned counsel for the respondent and the liberty was also granted to the petitioner to approach the respondent bank with a proposal, the respondent bank ought to have waited for the petitioner to submit its proposal in terms of the order of this Court dated 12.03.2025, before proceeding further with an auction. To be noted that the ten days’ time granted to the petitioner to submit its proposal has not yet expired.

16. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner is granted liberty to submit its proposal in terms of order dated 12.03.2025 latest by 24th March, 2025. In case any such proposal is submitted by the petitioner to This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/03/2025 at 12:21:40 the respondent bank, the same shall be considered by the bank in terms of observations made in the said order dated 12.03.2025.

17. It is directed that till the time the decision is taken by the respondent bank on the proposal so made by the petitioner, the process of auction which is stated to be scheduled on 19.03.2025, be deferred.

18. The application stands disposed of in the above terms. MARCH 18, 2025/jg VIKAS MAHAJAN, J This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/03/2025 at 12:21:40