Sanjay Bansal, a litigant, was constrained due to the non-functioning of the Debt Recovery Tribunal- I, New Delhi for several months, and therefore, he invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court. He complained that despite of his legitimately acquired property through a bank auction, Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited have issued a possession notice and further approached the Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram for taking physical possession under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
Mr Bansal arraigned this possession notice before the presiding officer, DRT Allahabad, who was holding the additional charge of DRT-I – Delhi. However, no hearing could take place in the last three months.
The Court was pleased to acknowledge the imminent threat ofthe Petitioner, of being dispossessed of its property. It was further noted that, since the respondent financial institution i.e. Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited, has preferred an application for appointment of a receiver under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the Deputy Commissioner, Gurugram, therefore, it was all the more necessary that the application preferred by the Petitioner before the DRT-1, New Delhi be heard.
Hon'ble Justice Sanjeev Narula requested the DRT to hear the Petitioner on 27.09.2022, when his matter is listed. The Court was pleased to observe that Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited shall not take any action for the recovery of the physical possession before that date.
Adv. Ramakant Gaur argued on behalf of the Petitioner and emphasised that speedy adjudication is a fundamental right and non-functioning of the DRT is a frequent problem being faced by the litigants and the hearings in their matter is not taking place before the DRT-I, Delhi. The situation arose because the presiding officers who have been appointed by the central committee have not joined/resumed their respective charges in various tribunals.
Counsels for the Petitioner- Ramakant Gaur, Prerana Agarwal, Sneha Arya, Harshi Gaur.