Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dhuli Lal Verma And Anr vs Icici Home Finance Comp Ors on 6 December, 2012
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH ORDER S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9238/2011 S.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO.8573/2011 (Dhuli Lal Verma & Anr. Vs. The ICICI Home Finance Company Ltd. & Ors.) Date of Order : 06.12.2012 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Mr. Mukesh Sharma, for the petitioners. Mr. Anant Bhandari, for respondent-ICICI. Mr. Ashutosh Bhatia, for respondent No.3-Company. BY THE COURT
A perusal of the petition indicates that the proceedings have been taken against the petitioners under the provisions of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act of 2002'). A notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 was issued to the petitioners on 15.05.2010. No objections thereto were filed by the petitioners. Subsequently, proceedings were taken under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 and an order, for taking possession of the mortgaged property held as a collateral by the respondent-Bank against the loan advanced to the petitioners, was passed by the District Magistrate, Baran. Thereafter, the respondent-Company i.e. Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Ltd. informed the petitioner vide letter dated 16.05.2011 that the District Magistrate, Baran had allowed their application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 on 15.02.2011 and the concerned District authority had been instructed to provide support to the respondent-Company for taking possession of the mortgaged property. The petitioners were therefore requested to vacate the mortgaged property within fifteen days from the date of the notice to enable it take possession thereof under the Act of 2002.
2. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the order dated 16.05.2011. Vide order dated 22.07.2011, this Court taking into consideration the financial difficulty of the petitioners proceeded to restrain the respondents from dispossessing the petitioners from the mortgaged property subject to the petitioners depositing 50% of the amount then due within a period of one month from the date of order.
3. Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon & Ors. [(2010) 8 SCC 110] has held that in matters relating to the Act of 2002, the writ courts ought not to interfere and should instead relegate the petitioners before them to the remedy under the Act of 2002. He further submits that even aside of the aforesaid question of jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioners after having obtained the indulgence of this Court under the order dated 22.07.2011 have not paid a single penny to the respondents and continue as a rampant defaulter and now are also guilty of non-compliance with the order passed by this Court.
4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner is in difficult financial circumstances and hence be allowed a few months time to repay the entire outstanding loan amount to the respondents.
5. Having heard the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that it is not for this Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters where there is an alternative efficacious remedy under the Act of 2002. Aside of the above as submitted by counsel for the respondent, the petitioners can also file a representation to the respondent-Company seeking a one time settlement with regard to the outstanding amount. It is therefore directed that in the event, the petitioners make a representation to the respondent-Company within fifteen days from today, the respondent shall proceed to decide the same and arrive at a one time settlement thereon within its extant policy pertaining to matters as the one now before this Court.
6. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Stay application needs no address in view of the writ petition being disposed of as above.
(ALOK SHARMA), J MS/-
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.- Manoj Solanki, Jr. P.A