Himachal Pradesh High Court
M/S Golden Paradise & Anr vs Punjab National Bank & Anr on 8 January, 2024
Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 7936/2023 Decided on : 8.1.2024 .
M/s Golden Paradise & anr. .....Petitioners Versus Punjab National Bank & anr. ....Respondents Coram:
of The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1No rt For the Petitioners: Mr. Ankit Dhiman, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate.
____________________________________________________________________ Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan (oral) The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive reliefs:
(i) That the impugned notice dated 25.9.2023 (Annexure P-3) may be quashed and set aside.
(ii) that the respondent Bank may be directed to restructure terms loans and allow the petitioner to revive the business in name of M/s Golden Paradise at Village Dhadial, P.O. Nari, Dera Baba Una, H.P.17403.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2024 20:37:04 :::CIS 22 It is not in dispute that the respondent-Bank has invoked provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest 2002 (for .
short, "the Act") after accounts of the petitioner-Firm were classified as Non Performing Assets (NPA) on 31.3.2021. The respondent-Bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Act on 21.6.2021 and the same was duly received and of acknowledged by the petitioner-firm but neither the petitioner-
firm filed any reply/objection under Section 13(3) of the Act nor rt bothered to repay the amount so demanded in the notice. The respondent-Bank thereafter proceeded to issue notice under Section 13(4) of the Act on 6.10.2021.
3 The petitioner-firm then approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) by filing S.A. No. 230/2022, which application was stated to be pending consideration before the DRT. Despite the petitioner-firm having already availed the remedy by approaching the concerned DRT, it did not choose to disclose the same while filing the instant petition and this Court entertained the writ petition believing that the the petitioner-firm was unnecessarily being harassed. The petitioner-firm readily deposited Rs.1 lac to show its bona fides ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2024 20:37:04 :::CIS 3 without disclosing that the total outstanding amount due and payable to the Bank at that time was nearly Rs.90 lac.
4 The Court on 30.11.2023 passed the following .
order:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client has deposited Rs. 1 Lac with the respondent-Bank and he further undertakes to deposit Rs. 10 lacs within a period of four weeks. He further prays for and is granted four of weeks time to file rejoinder. However, the petitioner shall annex with the rejoinder photographs and booking receipts for the marriage palace which it claims to have rt constructed.
List on 04.01.2024, interim order to continue."
5 No doubt, the petitioner, in compliance to aforesaid order, has deposited a sum of Rs.10 lacs, as is duly acknowledged by the respondent-Bank. However, we find from the receipts appended with the affidavit that majority of the functions took place in the marriage palace in the year 2020 alone, whereas in 2021 only one function took place, 2002 two functions and 2023 one function, and now one function is scheduled for 22.2.2024.
6 It needs to be noticed that the loan was primarily taken for the marriage palace, which, as per the receipts appended by the petitioner-firm, itself is in the doldrums not ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2024 20:37:04 :::CIS 4 only because of lack of functions being held there, but even the returns thereof for the functions are very meager, clearly indicating that the loan, which has been obtained by the .
petitioner, cannot be repaid from the returns of the marriage palace.
7 Leaving everything aside, the petitioner-firm ought to have disclosed to this Court that the petitioner-firm has already of approached the DRT for redressal of its grievances and having failed to do so, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed on rt this ground alone.
8 Apart from above, the Court otherwise lacks jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, wherein proceedings under the Act have been questioned as has been repeatedly held by this Court in a number of decisions rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 4831 of 2023, titled M/s Kartik Food vs. State of H.P. & Anr., decided on 01.08.2023, CWP No.4538 of 2023, titled M/s Neelkanth Yarn vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., decided on 02.08.2023 and CWP No. 5045 of 2023, titled M/s Dynamic Sales vs. District Magistrate, Solan & Ors., decided on 03.08.2023, wherein the Court has held that the writ petition regarding any of the matter which is covered by the the Act would not be maintainable and ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2024 20:37:04 :::CIS 5 the same would be maintainable before the DRT. It has further been held that the said DRT can go into the aspect of classifying of the account of the petitioner as NPA and also whether the .
RBI guidelines have been violated on the aspect leading to declaring of the account as NPA.
9 It shall be apt to produce the relevant observations as contained in para 27 to 29 of the judgment rendered in CWP of No. 4538 of 2023, titled M/s Neelkant Yarn vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors., decided on 02.08.2023, which read as under:-
rt "27 From the statutory scheme and decisions noted here-
in-above, it is clear that this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction, cannot go into the decision of respondent- bank in classifying the petitioner's account as NPA. If the respondent-bank proceeds further and reaches Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act stage, the petitioner-firm can file application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The DRT can go into the aspect of classifying the account as NPA and also whether RBI guidelines have been violated on any aspect leading to declaring the account as NPA and taking recourse under the SARFAESI Act.
28. It has also been repeatedly held that the aspect of classifying an account as NPA is not justiciable in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
29. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the instant petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2024 20:37:04 :::CIS 6 leaving open to the petitioner-firm to avail remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act as and when Section 13(4) thereof is invoked by the respondent-Bank. However, it is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the .
merits of the case and all issues are left open to be urged before the competent authority. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. The parties are left to bear their own costs."
10 In view of aforesaid discussions and for the reasons of stated hereinabove, we find the instant petition to be not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the rt pending application(s), if any.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan) Judge (Satyen Vaidya) 8.1.2024 Judge (pankaj) ::: Downloaded on - 08/01/2024 20:37:04 :::CIS