Punjab-Haryana High Court
Arun Dutt Vashisht And Another vs Indian Overseas Bank And Others on 3 October, 2024
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
CWP No. 23576 of 2024 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 23576 of 2024(0&M) Date of Decision: 03.10.2024. Aran Dott Vashishtand another j= = = = caneees Petitioners Versus Indian Qverseas Bank and others sssees Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR Present: Mr. Rohit Suri, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. Saurav Goyal, Advocate for respondent-Bank. 36 2 2 2 2 LISA GILL, J.
1. Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside demand notice dated 04.04.2024, Annexure P-4, under Section 13 (2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act'), possession notice dated 06.07.2024, Annexure P-5, under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act and sale notice dated 20.08.2024, Annexure P-6.
2. Petitioners are the guarantor in respect to loan which has admittedly been taken by respondent no.2, a partnership firm. Petitioner no.2 is partner of respondent no.2 as well as guarantor. Two (02) of the other partners/guarantors are arrayed as respondents no.3 and 4. CWP No. 23841 of 2024 filed by borrower i.e., M/s Chief Traders challenging the same SANJAY KHAN 2024.10.14 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, a CWP No. 23576 of 2024 (O&M) 2 demand notice dated 04.04.2024, possession notice, and sale notice, has been dismissed as withdrawn today itself i.e. 03.10.2024 with liberty to petitioners therein (borrower) to avail the remedy(ies) available to them in accordance with law.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners has raised various grounds regarding proceedings initiated under SARFAESI Act being de hors the applicable provisions of law.
4. At this stage, it is informed by learned counsel for respondent- Bank that property in question has since been sold pursuant to sale notice dated 20.08.2024 for a sum of €1,15,23,050/-.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any ground to interfere in the matter, especially keeping in view the settled position that petitioners have an efficacious alternate remedy for redressal of the grievances as raised under SARFAESI Act, itself. There is a catena of judgments wherein it has been held that interference by the High Court in such like matters should be minimal and should be actuated only in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. Gainful reference can be made to judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010(8) SCC 110 and M/s South Indian Bank Limited and others Vs. Naveen Mathew Philip and another, 2023(1) RCR (Civil) 771 and PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and others, Civil Appeal No.4845 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 8867 of 2022). Keeping in view the above, we deliberately refrain from delving upon the merits of the matter in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstance pointed out by learned counsel for petitioners.
6. At this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that learned DRT-II is not functional as additional charge of the same SANJAY KHAN 2024.10.14 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, a CWP No. 23576 of 2024 (O&M) 3 handed over to learned DRT-I, has not been extended after 14.08.2024. In view of order dated 30.09.2024 passed in CWP Nos. 25240 and 25295 of 2024 passed by this Court, this apprehension is clearly misplaced, whereby it has been directed as under:-
"At this stage, we take note of the piquant situation which has arisen due to non-functioning of learned DRT-II leading to a flood of writ petitions by adversely affected parties before this Court with no timeline available to indicate when learned DRT- II shall become functional. In the peculiar circumstances as above and in order to obviate unnecessary delays and difficulties to affected litigants, it is directed that earlier arrangement where additional charge of learned DRT-II had been given to DRT-I shall continue till the next date of hearing or any decision taken by Cabinet Committee for Appointments, whichever is earlier."
7. In view of the facts and circumstances as above, we do not find any ground for interference in this matter, at this stage.
8. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to petitioners to avail the remedy(ies) available to them in accordance with law for redressal of their grievance(s). There is no expression of opinion on the merits of the matter.
(LISA GILL ) JUDGE (SUKHVINDER KAUR) October 03, 2024. JUDGE s.khan Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No SANJAY KHAN 2024.10.14 11:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court, a