Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Aggarwal General Store And Anr vs Indian Bank (Allahabad Bank) And Ors on 20 October, 2023
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137235-DB
CWP-24024-2023 :1: 2023:PHHC:137235-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
119 CWP-24024-2023
Date of Decision: 20.10.2023
M/S AGGARWAL GENERAL STORE AND ANR.
... Petitioners
VERSUS
INDIAN BANK (ALLAHABAD BANK) AND ORS.
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE
Present: Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate
for the respondent-Bank.
*****
LISA GILL, J.(Oral)
1. Prayer in this writ petition is for quashing impugned notice dated 23.03.2023 (Annexure P-2) under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act), 2002 Act, notice dated 02.06.2023 (Annexure P-3) under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act and order dated 19.09.2023 (Annexure P-4) under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act.
2. Petitioners, it is submitted had availed of loan facility from respondent-Bank in October 2015. Due to financial indiscipline, their account was declared Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 22.03.2023. Proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated with issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act on 23.03.2023 and under 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 22-10-2023 01:12:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137235-DB CWP-24024-2023 :2: 2023:PHHC:137235-DB Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act on 02.06.2023. Order dated 19.09.2023 was passed under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act. It is submitted that proceedings under the SARFAESI Act are absolutely illegal and in violation of the provisions of law. Moreover, the petitioners are willing to deposit entire overdue amount subsequent to which their account should be regularized/made standard. Though ground of violation of guidelines dated 17.03.2016 of RBI has been pleaded, the same is not argued in view of the fact that admittedly business of petitioners stands closed.
3. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank (on advance notice) informs that account of the petitioners cannot be regularized/made standard by acceptance of the overdue amount for the reason that business stands closed and submits that present writ petition is not entertainable in view of efficacious remedy available to petitioners.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case, no ground is made out for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners admittedly have an efficacious remedy under the SARFAESI Act for redressal of their grievances. Gainful reference in this regard can be made to the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010(8) SCC 110, and M/s South Indian Bank Ltd. and others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and another, 2023(2) RCR (Civil) 771. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of M/s South Indian Bank (supra) while reiterating its earlier judgments held that where an alternate efficacious remedy is available to the 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 22-10-2023 01:12:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137235-DB CWP-24024-2023 :3: 2023:PHHC:137235-DB litigant before a Forum constituted under a statute, interference by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India should be restricted to exceptional cases. It was held as under:-
"15. The object and reasons behind the Act 54 of 2002 are very clear as observed by this Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311. While it facilitates a faster and smoother mode of recovery sans any interference from the Court, it does provide a fair mechanism in the form of the Tribunal being manned by a legally trained mind. The Tribunal is clothed with a wide range of powers to set aside an illegal order, and thereafter, grant consequential reliefs, including re-possession and payment of compensation and costs. Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act gives an expansive meaning to the expression "any person", who could approach the Tribunal.
XXX
18. While doing so, we are conscious of the fact that the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are rather wide but are required to be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances in matters pertaining to proceedings and adjudicatory scheme qua a statute, more so in commercial matters involving a lender and a borrower, when the legislature has provided for a specific mechanism for appropriate redressal."
6. It is relevant to note that concededly business of petitioners stands closed. Thus their account cannot be regularized/made standard as all policies/regulations of the Bank. No direction in this respect can be issued.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the matter, 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 22-10-2023 01:12:55 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137235-DB CWP-24024-2023 :4: 2023:PHHC:137235-DB writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail statutory remedy available to them in accordance with law. Needless to say it is always open to the parties to arrive at a mutually acceptable settlement. There is no expression of opinion on the merits of the matter.
(LISA GILL) JUDGE (RITU TAGORE) 20.10.2023 JUDGE Rimpal Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:137235-DB 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 22-10-2023 01:12:55 :::