M/s Jambo Finvest (India) Limited & Ors. v. Indian Overseas Bank & Ors.

(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19093/2024)

Facts

• The petitioners are a company and its directors, against whom proceedings were pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur.
• At the relevant time, the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur was non-functional due to absence of a Presiding Officer.
• An auction notice dated 16.11.2024 had been issued by the respondent bank.
• The petitioners had already filed an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal challenging the auction notice.
• It was submitted that despite interim protection granted by the Tribunal, the respondent bank was proceeding with the auction.
• In view of the non-functioning of the Tribunal and the imminence of the auction, the petitioners approached the High Court.

Petitioners’ Arguments

• Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the writ petition was necessitated solely due to the institutional vacuum at the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur.
• It was pointed out that an application challenging the auction notice was already pending before the Tribunal and that interim protection had been granted therein.
• It was submitted that, despite such protection, the respondent bank was proceeding with the auction.
• In view of the fact that additional charge had been handed over to the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi, a limited request was made for appropriate directions to ensure expeditious consideration of the petitioners’ pending application, as the auction was imminent.

Respondents’ Position

• Learned counsel appeared on behalf of the respondent bank.
• The matter was considered in the context of the statutory remedy available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Hon’ble High Court’s Observations & Decision

• The Court took note of the submission that the writ petition had been filed due to the non-availability of a Presiding Officer at the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur.
• The Court further noted that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, additional charge had been given to the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi.
• In view of the above development, the Court recorded that the writ petition was not pressed on merits.
• The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue their application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi.
• The Court further observed that any request made by the petitioners for expeditious consideration of their application, in view of the proposed auction, shall be considered by the Tribunal in accordance with law.