Petitioner fined for approaching HC repeatedly instead of DRT

“Like the proverbial citing of the scripture, the defaulting petitioner here seeks to hide behind an order dated May 17 passed in a suo motu writ petition in the wake of the second surge of the pandemic,” said the first bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice PD Audikesavalu.

The bench pointed out that the last order on July 27 had extended the interim order till August 31 but expressly excluded eviction proceedings from its purview.

There was little dispute that the petitioner has defaulted in making payment to Punjab National Bank, the bench noted. “Apart from the fact that the petitioner ought to have approached the appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal against any measure adopted by [the bank], the issuance of a notice of e-auction cannot be said, by itself, to be a notice for eviction though eviction may later follow in the usual course.” Finding that this was the fifth such petition moved by the petitioner, the court directed the person to pay Rs 50,000 to the bank as cost while dismissing the plea, but said the petitioner could approach the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal.