Judgment · High Court

Heard Mr. K.R. Surana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The respondent UCO bank and its authorized officers have proceeded again st the petitioner under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the (cid:28)Securitisation Act (cid:29)) for the failure of the petitioner to re pay the loan to the bank. The bank has already issued a Possession Notice dated 18.7.2009 in respe ct of the petitioner’s hypothecated property and it is submitted by Mr. Surana t hat although the petitioner has made a payment of Rs.9,50,000/- after 18.7.2009 the bank is proceeding to take over actual possession of the hypothecated proper ty and dispossess the petitioner. Considering the alternate remedy available under the Securitisation Act, against the impugned action, I do not think that intervention of the Writ Cour t is justified in the present matter. However Mr. Surana, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would now move the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati against the impug ned action but a limited protection in this regard is sought by the learned coun sel. He submits that no regular Presiding Officer is functioning in the Guwahati Tribunal and according to his information only on 31.5.2010, the outstation Pre siding Officer is expected to be available at Guwahati to take up cases for cons ideration. Considering the said limited prayer, while not entertaining the writ pet ition and relegating the petitioner to the alternate remedy under the Securitisa tion Act, the respondents are restrained until 31.5.2010 to take over physical possession of the hypothecated property as the petitioner and his family are res iding in the said property and the petitioner No.2 is said to be admitted in the hospital in a serious condition.