Gujarat High Court
M/S Ed Valuechain Solution Pvt. Ltd vs The Ld. District Magistrate on 15 December, 2022
Author: Bhargav D. Karia
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
C/SCA/22857/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22857 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22857 of 2022
==========================================================
M/S ED VALUECHAIN SOLUTION PVT. LTD.
Versus
THE LD. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PERCY KAVINA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with
NEEL N SHAH(8329) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR AS PANESAR(5390) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 15/12/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. This Court passed the following order on 16.11.2022.
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Percy Kavina with learned advocate Mr. Neel N. Shah for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. A.S.Panesar for the respondent No.4-Bank.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has filed undertaking on affidavit on behalf of the petitioner which reads as under:
"I, Sandip N. Shah, director of the petitioner company herein, do hereby solemnly affirm Page 1 of 18 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 03:26:24 IST 2022 C/SCA/22857/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022 and state that: 1. I state and submit the proposed plan to shift the students residing in the secured property as under:
a. That the petitioner has shortlisted the property in the name of Prayas Foundation located at village Tajpur of Sabarkantha District of about 25 kilometers away from the secured premise. Where the petitioner would be in the position to accommodate about 250 students by letting out 55-60 rooms. The petitioner would take around 10 days to negotiate the terms of lease with the owner of the proposed property, the petitioner would further take 10 days to clean the proposed premise and make it hygenic for the students to live in. the petitioner would take another 10 days to make the proposed premise to carry out repairing and maintenance work and 6 days to transfer the furniture from secured premise to this new premise and another 1 day to transfer 250 students by arranging necessary means of transportation. In all by the date 13/12/2022 the petitioner would be in the position to vacate the premises for this 250 students.
b. That to shift another 120 students to another potential premise namely Page 2 of 18 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 03:26:24 IST 2022 C/SCA/22857/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022 Veundavan Arcade located at Raisan , Gandhinagar , the petitioner may take about
3 days to undertake documentation for lease purpose , whereafter the petitioner would take another 8 days to undergo repairing , maintenance and construction of new toilet facility for the students , and 15 days to construct and install new furniture. In all by 11/12/2022 the petitioner would be in the position to vacate the secured premise and handover the possession to the respondent Bank.
c. That to shift 80 students to Shrirang Plaza located at Radesan village in Gandhinagar, the petitioner would take 7 days to undertake documentation for lease, after which the petitioner would take about 10 days to undergo construction of toilet facility for students and carry out repairing and maintenance of the proposed premise. Further 7 days to shift and construct and install new furniture and then the petitioner would undertake to shift 80 students which would take another 1 day. In all by the date 10/12/2022 the petitioner would be in a position to complete the process. To prove the bona-fides , the petitioner has initiated the process of shifting by making the payment to Shrirangrang Organizers for the Page 3 of 18 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 03:26:24 IST 2022 C/SCA/22857/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022 scheme Shrirang Plaza to an amount of Rs. 4,94,000 towards the deposit, to relocate the students.
d. That the petitioner is yet in search for location for the accommodation for the remaining students.
e. Over and above the petitioner has to undertake to arrange for mess facility in all the above tentative locations.
f. In all even if the petitioner begins to undertake the necessary steps from 15/11/2022, the petitioner would be in the position to accommodate few students by the date 13/12/2022 only.
g. The petitioner is bound by its agreement with the IIIT to provide for the wellbeing of the students, for which the petitioner has to shift furniture, make necessary hygiene facilities to the newly located premise, repair and reconstruct the new premise if the need then only the petitioner can shift the students.
h. The petitioner submits that the petitioner will vacate the secured premise on the date 13/12/2022.
Page 4 of 18 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 03:26:24 IST 2022C/SCA/22857/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022 i. The petitioner submits that if the petitioner is in the position to vacate the secured premise prior to the date specified, the petitioner at his own cost is ready and willing to inform the respondent bank to take over the physical possession of the secured premise."
3. In view of the above undertaking, learned advocate Mr. A.S.Panesar for the respondent No.4- Bank submitted that respondent No.4-Bank shall wait for the petitioner to handover the possession as undertaken before this Court in the aforesaid undertaking and shall not take coercive action till 13.12.2022 in respect of the mortgaged property occupied by the petitioner.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that this matter may be adjourned to 23.11.2022 so as to report before this Court about the progress made by the petitioner in respect of the undertaking filed before this Court.
Stand over to 23rd November,2022.
2. Thereafter time was sought on 23.11.2022 so as to see that the undertaking is implemented. The matter was adjourned to 07.12.2022 and thereafter to 14.12.2022.
3. It appears that the petitioner Private Limited Company Page 5 of 18 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 03:26:24 IST 2022 C/SCA/22857/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022 entered into a lease agreement with the borrower of respondent No. 4 - Union Bank of India knowing fully well that the owner of the property - respondent No. 3(a) and 3(b) were indebted to the respondent No. 4 - Bank .
4. On 14.12.2022, when the matter was listed, learned senior advocate Mr. Kavina assisted by learned advocate Mr. Neel Shah for the petitioner submitted further affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the petitioner showing the progress. In the said affidavit it was pointed out that the petitioner has entered into the lease agreement with the property situated in the name of 'Shri Rang Plaza' on 19.11.2022. It was further pointed out that according to the said lease agreement 25 students can be shifted out of total 700 plus students who are residing in the mortgaged premises. It is also pointed out in the affidavit that the petitioner was in process of shifting the students but the petitioner is unable to do so inspite of the best efforts of the petitioner.
5. Learned advocate Ms. Jani who appears for the applicant of Civil Application - Indian Institute of Information Technology submitted that the students studying in the institute are accommodated in the mortgaged premises and as such till the present term of the students is over, the residence of the students should not be disturbed, otherwise it would affect the career of the students and there are about 722 students who are residing in the premises whose possession is sought to be acquired by the respondent No. 4 - Bank and it would be very difficult for the students to shift. It was further submitted that the applicant - institute is also negotiating with the respondent Page 6 of 18 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 03:26:24 IST 2022 C/SCA/22857/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022 No. 4 - Bank to find out an amicable solution and the negotiation is in process.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Panesar for the respondent No. 4 - Bank submitted that inspite of the undertaking given by the petitioner not a single flat is vacated by the petitioner till 13.12.2022 and as such there is clear breach of the undertaking and therefore the respondent - Bank is not in a position to extend further time to either the petitioner or the applicant institute for vacating the premises.
7. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:-
(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED TO admit and allow the present petition.
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY protect the possession of the petitoner in view of the direction of the Apex Court passed in the case of VISHAL N KALSARIA V/S BANK OF INDIA reported in AIR 2016 SC 530 and may not dispossess the petitioner and students from the premises i.e. A-
GF, 1, Rajlabhdhi Heritage, Koba, Gandhinagar, Gujarat in the interest of justice.
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY protect the possession of the petitnoer until the examination of the students are completed and the petitioner makes necessary arrangements to migrate the students to another location.
(D) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED TO stay the operation, execution and implementation of the order dated 18/10/2022 passed by the Ld. Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar annexed here with as Annexure-A to the present petition, pending the Page 7 of 18 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 03:26:24 IST 2022 C/SCA/22857/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022 admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition; in the interest of justice.
(E) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED TO issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ and there by quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. Mamlatdar, Gandhinagar annexed here with as Annexure-A to the present petition; in the interest of justice.
(E) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED TO grant any other appropriate relief in the interest of justice.
8. On perusal of the facts and material on record, it appears that the petitioner is providing the lodging and boarding facilities to the students of the applicant - institute by entering into an agreement for empanelment of the property. As per the agreement which is produced at Pg: 40 at Annexure-D to the petition the Scope of Service and Subscription Charges and Terms of Payment are referred to as under:-
"Scope of Services:
1.1 The service provider agrees to provide the services as per the Institute's EOI enquiry no.
IIITV/PUR/EMPNL-HOSTEL/21-22/01 dated 09 April 2021 and Letter of Intent (LOI) no.
IITV/PUR/LOI/EMPNL/STUDENT HOSTEL/21-22/01 dated 16 July 2021.
1.2 The scope of service shall mean the services as shall be provided by the service provider to IIIT Page 8 of 18 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 03:26:24 IST 2022 C/SCA/22857/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022 Vadodara, pursuant to this agreement, which shall be in accordance with the Institute's cited EOI enquiry and LOI documents.
2. Subscription Charges and Terms of Payment:
2.1 The subscription charges for empanelment period of the first year is as per the following:
Sr. No. Particulars Remarks
(a) Subscription Charges Per Student Rs. 5,200.00 Per Month (as per the Clause 4(b) of the Institute's EOI enquiry documents for calculation of retention charges to be paid by the institute
(b) Subscription Charges Per Student Rs. 30,500.00 Per Academic Semester/Term (as the case be) 2.2 The escalation of 5% (non-cumulative) will be given in the rates mentioned at Para 2.1 above from second year.
2.3 The terms of payment are as per the Institute's EOI enquiry no. IIITV/PUR/EMPNL-
HOSTEL/21-22/01 dated 09 April 2021 and Letter of Intent (LOI) no. IITV/PUR/LOI/EMPNL/STUDENT HOSTEL/21-22/01 dated 16 July 2021."
9. In view of the above clauses and other clauses of the agreement it is between the petitioner and applicant - institute Page 9 of 18 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 03:26:24 IST 2022 C/SCA/22857/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022 to provide accommodation to the students. The respondent No. 4 - Bank cannot be said to be anywhere concerned with the contractual obligations of the petitioner and applicant - institute. The respondent No. 4 - Bank has initiated the proceedings under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act') by invoking the provisions of Section 13(4) and thereafter Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner is in possession of the property which is mortgaged with the respondent No. 4 as a secured asset. The respondent No. 4 - Bank is therefore entitled to get the vacant possession of the secured asset so also to sell the same and recover the outstanding dues. As per section 17 of the SARFAESI Act the alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner as well as the applicant institute who are aggrieved persons with the measures taken under the SARFAESI Act by the respondent No. 4 - Bank.
10. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Phoenix Arc Private Limited V/s Vishwa Bharati Vidhya Mandir., reported in (2022) 5 SCC 345 wherein the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when alternative efficacious remedy is available as under:-
"7.1 It is the case on behalf of the appellant that the writ petitions against the communication dated 13.08.2015 proposing to take further action under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and that too against a private Assets Reconstructing Page 10 of 18 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 03:26:24 IST 2022 C/SCA/22857/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022 Company (ARC) shall not be maintainable. It is also the case on behalf of the appellant that assuming that the communication dated 13.08.2015 can be said to be a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, in view of the alternative statutory remedy available by way of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petitions.
7.2 While considering the issue regarding the maintainability of and/or entertainability of the writ petitions by the High Court in the instant case, a few decisions of this Court relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - ARC are required to be referred to.
7.3 In the case of Satyawati Tondon & Ors. (supra), it was observed and held by this Court that the remedies available to an aggrieved person against the action taken under section 13(4) or Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, by way of appeal under Section 17, can be said to be both expeditious and effective. On maintainability of or entertainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in a case where the effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person, it is observed and held in the said decision in paragraphs 43 to 46 as under:-
"43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations Page 11 of 18 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 03:26:24 IST 2022 C/SCA/22857/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022 enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.
44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance.
46. It must be remembered that stay of an action initiated by the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities for recovery of taxes, cess, fees, etc. seriously impedes execution of projects of public importance and disables them Page 12 of 18 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 03:26:24 IST 2022 C/SCA/22857/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022 from discharging their constitutional and legal obligations towards the citizens. In cases relating to recovery of the dues of banks, financial institutions and secured creditors, stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of such bodies/institutions, which (sic will) ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation. Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters. Of course, if the petitioner is able to show that its case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad [AIR 1969 SC 556], Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8 SCC 1] and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [(2003) 2 SCC 107] and some other judgments, then the High Court may, after considering all the relevant parameters and public interest, pass an appropriate interim order."
7.4 In the case of City and Industrial Development Corpn. Vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala, (2009) 1 SCC 168, it was observed by this Court in paragraph 30 that the Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty bound to consider whether ...............(c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute."
7.5 In the case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and Ors. (supra) after referring to the earlier decisions of this Court in the cases of Sadhana Lodh Vs. National insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., (2003) 3 SCC 524; Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 675 and State Bank of India Vs. Allied Chemical Laboratories and Anr., (2006) 9 SCC 252 while upholding the order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy is available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, it was observed that ordinarily relief under Page 13 of 18 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 03:26:24 IST 2022 C/SCA/22857/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022 Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person.
7.6 Similar view has been expressed by this Court in subsequent decisions in the case of General Manager, Sri Siddeshwara Cooperative Bank Limited & Anr. (supra) as well as in the case of Agarwal Tracom Private Limited (supra).
8. Applying the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid decisions, it is required to be considered whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court is justified in entertaining the writ petitions against the communication dated 13.08.2015 and to pass the ex-parte ad interim order virtually stalling/restricting the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act by the creditor.
12. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that a writ petition against the private financial institution - ARC - appellant herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proposed action/actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act can be said to be not maintainable. In the present case, the ARC proposed to take action/actions under the SARFAESI Act to recover the borrowed amount as a secured creditor. The ARC as such cannot be said to be performing public functions which are normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. During the course of a commercial transaction and under the contract, the bank/ARC lent the money to the borrowers herein and therefore the said activity of the bank/ARC cannot be said to be as performing a public function which is normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. If proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any proposed action is to be taken and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, borrower has to avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition Page 14 of 18 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 03:26:24 IST 2022 C/SCA/22857/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022 would lie and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable. Therefore, decisions of this Court in the cases of Praga Tools Corporation (supra) and Ramesh Ahluwalia (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the borrowers are not of any assistance to the borrowers.
13. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the borrowers that in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court may not interfere with the interim / interlocutory orders is concerned, the decision of this Court in the case of Mathew K.C. (supra) is required to be referred to.
13.1 In the case of Mathew K.C. (supra) after referring to and/or considering the decision of this Court in the case of Chhabil Dass Agarwal (supra), it was observed and held in paragraph 5 as under:-
"5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. Normally this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is loath to interfere with an interim order passed in a pending proceeding before the High Court, except in special circumstances, to prevent manifest injustice or abuse of the process of the court. In the present case, the facts are not in dispute. The discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not absolute but has to be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and in accordance with law. The normal rule is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to be entertained if alternate statutory remedies are available, except in cases falling within the well-defined exceptions as observed in CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2014) 1 SCC 603], as follows: (SCC p. 611, para 15) "15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of Page 15 of 18 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 03:26:24 IST 2022 C/SCA/22857/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022 alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case [Thansingh Nathmal v. Supt. of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419] , Titaghur Paper Mills case [Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433] and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation."
13.2 Applying the law laid down by this Court in the case of Mathew K.C. (supra) to the facts on hand, we are of the opinion that filing of the writ petitions by the borrowers before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an abuse of process of the Court. The writ petitions have been filed against the proposed action to be taken under Section 13(4). As observed hereinabove, even assuming that the communication dated 13.08.2015 was a notice under Section 13(4), in that case also, in view of the statutory, efficacious remedy available by way of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petitions. Even the impugned orders passed by the High Court directing to maintain the status quo with respect to the possession of the secured properties on payment of Rs.1 crore only (in all Rs.3 crores) is absolutely unjustifiable. The dues are to the extent of approximately Rs.117 crores.
Page 16 of 18 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 03:26:24 IST 2022C/SCA/22857/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022 The ad-interim relief has been continued since 2015 and the secured creditor is deprived of proceeding further with the action under the SARFAESI Act. Filing of the writ petition by the borrowers before the High Court is nothing but an abuse of process of Court. It appears that the High Court has initially granted an ex-parte ad- interim order mechanically and without assigning any reasons. The High Court ought to have appreciated that by passing such an interim order, the rights of the secured creditor to recover the amount due and payable have been seriously prejudiced. The secured creditor and/or its assignor have a right to recover the amount due and payable to it from the borrowers. The stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of the secured creditor/assignor. Therefore, the High Court should have been extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion while granting stay in such matters. In these circumstances, the proceedings before the High Court deserve to be dismissed."
11. In view of above, this writ application is not entertained as the jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 is not required to be exercised as alternative remedy is available. The petitioner as well as the applicant - institute are therefore relegated to avail the alternative efficacious remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.
12. In view of the averments made in further affidavit filed by the petitioner which prima-facie shows that the petitioner has undertaken measures and steps and tried to comply with the undertaking filed before this Court, I am of the opinion that there is no attempt to evade the undertaking which was filed before this Court and therefore no action is taken for breach of Page 17 of 18 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 03:26:24 IST 2022 C/SCA/22857/2022 ORDER DATED: 15/12/2022 undertaking filed before this Court.
13. In view of the above facts, as the students are staying in the mortgaged premises possession of which is sought to be taken by the respondent No. 4 - Bank, two weeks time is granted to the petitioner as well as the applicant - institute to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal to avail the alternative efficacious remedy and the respondent Bank is directed not to take any coercive action for a period of two weeks from today.
14. Both, the petition and Civil Application are accordingly disposed of. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.
15. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Panesar submits that respondent No. 4 - Bank may be permitted to proceed with the auction process. It is clarified that this Court has only restrained the respondent - Bank from taking any coercive action for taking possession for two weeks i.e. upto 31.12.2022.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) SHRIJIT PILLAI Page 18 of 18 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 03:26:24 IST 2022