Madhya Pradesh High Court
Gaurav Trading Company vs Hdb Financial Services Tld. on 1 March, 2021
Author: Prakash Shrivastava
Bench: Prakash Shrivastava
1
WP-4424-2021
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Writ Petition No.4424/2021
(Gaurav Trading Company and others vs HDB Financial Services Ltd. and another)
Jabalpur, Dated 01-03-2021.
Shri Anuj Agrawal, learned counsel for petitioners.
Shri S.M. Guru, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-
Bank.
Shri A.P. Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent No.2.
By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a limited indulgence seeking permission to deposit Rs.15 lacs within a further period of 10 days i.e. by 10 th March, 2021 in pursuance to the order of the DRT dated 16.02.2021.
2. The aforesaid prayer has been made in the background of the fact that the loan account of the petitioner was declared as NPA and the petitioner had approached the DRT by filing S.A. No.751/2019 in which the DRT on 08.01.2020 had directed that in case the petitioner deposits a minimum amount of Rs.6 lacs on or before 31.01.2020 and further deposits a minimum amount of Rs.6 lacs before the last day of every month and clears the entire overdues on or before 31.07.2020 along with interest and thereafter, regularly deposits the EMIs, the execution of the order passed by the DM shall be kept in abeyance and the respondents will not proceed further under the SARFAESI Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in pursuance to the order dated 08.01.2020, the petitioner had deposited Rs.6 lacs in January, 2020 and further Rs.6 lacs in 2 WP-4424-2021 February, 2020 but thereafter, the amount could not be deposited as country wide lock-down was imposed from March, 2020.
4. In the aforesaid background, a fresh application was moved before the DRT being M.A. No.06/2021 in which the DRT on 16.02.2021 had passed the following order :
"The applicant will deposit Rs.15.00 lacs by 28.02.2020 and thereafter will continue to deposit 6.00 lacs every month as directed in order dated 8.1.2020 and will liquidate the entire dues of the bank by 31.7.2021. The applicant will not be entitled for any further time extension in future. However, in case of non payment of Rs.15.00 lacs as initial amount and in two consecutive defaults in any of the installment the bank will be at liberty to proceed under Secularization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 on the process already initiated."
5. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that by mistake, 28.02.2020 has been mentioned in the above order whereas the said date is 28.02.2021. This aspect is not disputed by the respondent No.1-Bank.
6. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner has made a limited prayer that on account of certain unavoidable circumstances, the petitioner could not deposit the sum of Rs.15 lacs by 28.02.2021 and that he be granted only 10 days' time to deposit the said amount and the same will be deposited by 10 th March, 2021 and the petitioner will deposit the remaining amount in pursuance to the order of the DRT dated 16.02.2021 without 3 WP-4424-2021 committing any default and will liquidate the entire dues of the Bank by 31.07.2021. The counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in addition to Rs.15 lacs, the installment of Rs.6 lacs due for March, 2021 as directed by the DRT will also be deposited.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has opposed the prayer by placing reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev vs State of Maharashtra (2011) 2 SCC 782 and submitting that the petitioner has alternate remedy of approaching the DRAT.
8. It is the settled position in law that directing the party to avail the alternate remedy is a self-imposed restriction and in the judgment of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for the Bank, the Court had also settled that ordinarily the relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person.
9. In the present case, having regard to the limited relief which has been claimed in the present petition and also considering the fact that sufficient time is not left with the petitioner to approach the DRAT and that the DRT Jabalpur is not functioning and its work is being done by the In-charge Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow and considering the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it would not be in the interest of justice to drive the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy of appeal or review at this stage. We are also of the opinion that the limited prayer which has been made by the petitioner is justified in the facts of the case.
4WP-4424-2021
10. Hence, we dispose of the petition by granting time up to 10 th March, 2021 to the petitioner to deposit the initial sum of Rs.15 lacs in pursuance to the order dated 16.02.2021 and to deposit further amount as already directed by the DRT. It is made clear that this Court has not altered any other conditions imposed by the DRT.
C.C. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) (Virender Singh)
JUDGE JUDGE
vinod
Digitally signed by
VINOD VISHWAKARMA
Date: 2021.03.03
12:52:55 +05'30'