Delhi High Court - Orders
Sanjay Dhingra vs Idbi Bank Limited & Ors on 5 August, 2022
Author: Sanjeev Narula
Bench: Sanjeev Narula
$~93
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8131/2020 & CM APPL. 26390/2020
SANJAY DHINGRA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi, Advocate.
versus
IDBI BANK LIMITED & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sidharth Barua, Ms. Aditya
Gupta and Mr. Praful Jindal,
Advocates for R-1/IDBI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA
ORDER
% 05.08.2022
1. The present petition lays a challenge to the proceedings initiated by IDBI Bank against the Petitioner under Section 13(2) and 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 [hereinafter, 'SARFAESI Act'], on the ground that inter alia, SARFAESI Act, 2002 would not apply in the facts and circumstances of this case since Petitioner is situated in Dubai.
2. An interim order was passed in favour of the Petitioner on 16th October, 2020, directing maintenance of status quo with respect to the immovable property against which such action was initiated. In this order, the court took note of an interim order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay,1 wherein, in a lis between the Petitioner 1 Interim order dated 30th September, 2019 in W.P. 3280/2019 titled Sapna Agarwal v. Canara Bank & Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:10.08.2022 15:36:51 (who is also the Petitioner herein) and another bank, an interim order was passed.
3. It is now submitted by the counsels that the Bombay High Court has finally decided the said petition vide judgment dated 26th November, 2020 and dismissed the same with the observation that since an alternate efficacious statutory remedy existed under the SARFAESI Act, the Petitioner's recourse lay before the Debt Recovery Tribunal instead of a writ court.
4. A Special Leave to Appeal before the Supreme Court too came to be dismissed.2
5. Accordingly, now, the interim order dated 30th September, 2019 is of no avail, and Petitioner cannot rely on the same. In light of the above, the entire basis of the interim order dated 16th October, 2020 passed in the instant petition, does not sustain.
6. There is another intervening fact which the Petitioner has brought to the notice of the Court. Personal insolvency proceedings qua the Petitioner under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 have been initiated before the NCLT, Delhi Bench. Counsel for the Petitioner claims that a moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC has commenced, and Respondent No. 1 Bank cannot take any action qua the properties of the Petitioner.
7. If this is indeed the position, then the Court has no reason to entertain the present petition as the NCLT would take a final view with respect to the assets of the Petitioner in the personal insolvency proceedings.
Anr.
2Order dated 15th December, 2020 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).14986/2020 titled Sapna Agarwal v. Canara Bank & Anr.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:10.08.2022 15:36:518. However, when this question is posed to counsel for the Respondent, he does not take a clear stand as to whether there is a moratorium qua the Petitioner or not. Instead, he urges that assiuming there is a moratorium, yet proceedings before this Court cannot lie as remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is available to the Petitioner.
9. In the opinion of the Court, given the absence of clear stand of Respondent No. 1, a final view based on interpretation on Section 96 of the IBC cannot be given. IDBI Bank is directed to file an affidavit stating its stance qua the personal insolvency proceedings, within a period of two weeks from today.
10. Considering the fact that the next date before the NCLT is 2nd September, 2022, list the present petition thereafter on 13th September, 2022.
SANJEEV NARULA, J AUGUST 5, 2022 nk Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SAPNA SETHI Signing Date:10.08.2022 15:36:51