Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Master Kshitij Goyal And Ors vs State Bank Of Patila on 4 February, 2014
Author: Amitava Roy
Bench: Amitava Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
O R D E R
D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.1481/2013
IN
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20150/2013
MASTER KSHITIJ GOYAL(MINOR) & ORS. Vs. STATE BANK OF PATILA
DATE:04.02.2014
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Mr. V.N. Bohra, for the appellants.
****
BY THE COURT (PER HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE):
The instant appeal witnesses a challenge to the judgment and order dated 20.11.2013, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20150/2013, questioning the steps taken by the respondent-Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the SARFAESI Act') in its bid to realize its outstanding dues.
We have heard Mr. V.N. Bohra, the learned counsel for the appellants.
Briefly stated, the facts in bare essentials necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, are that M/s Goyal Stone Crusher, a partnership firm, had availed financial accommodation from the respondent-Bank. Ravi Goyal (since deceased), the father of the appellants, according to them, was the borrower-cum-guarantor for the said loan. He expired on 31.03.2013. The appellants/writ-petitioners have averred that on 29.05.2013, the respondent-Bank issued a notice to the aforementioned firm under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act with a copy, amongst others, to their mother, Smt. Mintu Goyal, demanding repayment of an amount of Rs.6,04,61,723.12 with interest, conveying thereby as well that in case of its failure to do so, necessary action under Section 13(4) of the enactment would be taken. According to the appellants/writ-petitioners, though the respondent-Bank was aware that they were also the heirs and legal representatives of Ravi Goyal (since deceased), this notice was not addressed to them. On 22.07.2013, another notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued by the respondent-Bank, this time to the firm and also to them as well as their mother, Smt. Mintu Goyal requiring them to liquidate the outstanding amount, as mentioned therein, reiterating that on their failure to do so, necessary action under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act would be taken. Thereby, they were also retrained from transferring by way of sale, lease or otherwise the secured assets, as detailed in Schedule 'C' to the notice, without obtaining written consent of the respondent-Bank in terms of Section 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act. The appellants/writ-petitioners averred that though by notice dated 22.07.2013, 60 days time was granted to discharge their liabilities, as referred to therein, the officers of the respondent-Bank before the expiry thereof, visited their residence and pressurised them to vacate the same. Eventually, on 14.10.2013 they submitted their representation/objection under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, detailing the illegalities in the process undertaken by the respondent-Bank in violation of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act as well as the Rules framed thereunder. In its reply dated 21.10.2013, the respondent-Bank while asserting that the action taken had been in full compliance of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, indicated that the possession of the secured assets, meanwhile, had been delivered to it on 12.08.2013 and that vide notice dated 16.10.2013, auction sale thereof had been notified. Situated thus, the appellants/writ-petitioners approached this Court seeking its intervention in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
The learned Single Judge, having regard to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon And Others, (2010) 8 SCC 110, declined to intervene on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
The learned counsel for the appellants/writ-petitioners has insistently argued that having regard to the nature of illegalities committed by the respondent-Bank, the appellants/writ-petitioners ought not to have been relegated to the appellate forum under the SARFAESI Act and that the writ petition ought to have been entertained and adjudicated on merits.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the appellants/writ-petitioners and on a perusal of the decision rendered in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon And Others(supra), we are unable to sustain this contention. Their Lordships in this decision, in view of the contextual facts involving the SARFAESI Act, had disapproved the intervention of the jurisdictional High Court in the face of alternative remedy of appeal thereunder. It was observed that while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of public dues etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by the Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain a comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Their Lordships underlined that in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. This, the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized, notwithstanding, the amplitude of powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and also the proposition that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy was one of discretion and not of compulsion.
In view of the emphatic observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon And Others(supra), we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be repudiated to be patently illegal or vitiated by any error on fundamental principle of law. No interference, thus, with the impugned judgment and order is called for, in the attendant facts and circumstances.
The appeal is dismissed.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J. (AMITAVA ROY),C.J.
/KKC/
Certificate:
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
KAMLESH KUMAR P.A.