Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Precision Engineering Components ... vs State Bank Of India on 5 December, 2023
Author: Sheel Nagu
Bench: Sheel Nagu
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEVNARAYAN MISHRA
ON THE 5 th OF DECEMBER, 2023
MISC. PETITION No. 7182 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
1. M/S PRECISION ENGINEERING COMPONENTS
UNIT II, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM THROUGH ITS
PARTNER SHRI RAVI BHOJWANI, ADDRESS :
PLOT NO 4, SECTOR 1, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
GOVINDPURA, BHOPAL (M.P.)
2. RAVI BHOJWANI S/O LATE SHRI J.H. BHOJWANI,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,
ADDRESS : 20-21, AMRAPALI ENCLAVE, CHUNA
BHATTI, KOLAR ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P.)
3. ROHIT BHOJWANI S/O SHRI RAVI BHOJWANI,
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS,
ADDRESS: 20-21, AMRAPALI ENCLAVE, CHUNA
BHATTI, KOLAR ROAD, BHOPAL (M.P.)
.....PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI AKSHAT AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS
AUTHORIZED OFFICER, STRESSED ASSETS
MANAGEMENT BRANCH, STATE BANK
BUILDING, FIRST FLOOR, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL
462011 (M.P.)
2. STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS BRANCH
M ANAGER, RMME SALES HUB, SME BRANCH,
GOVINDPURA, BHOPAL (M.P.)
3. COLLECTOR / DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BHOPAL
DISTRICT BHOPAL (M.P.)
4. TEHSILDAR, NAZUL HUZUR, DISTRICT BHOPAL
2
(M.P.)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI G.P. SINGH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
This petition coming on for admission this day, Justice Sheel Nagu
passed the following:
ORDER
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India of India invokes the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court to assail interlocutory order dated 22.11.2023 (Annexure P/6) passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short 'DRT') Jabalpur in Securitisation Application No.949/2023 filed by petitioners herein.
1 .1 By the aforesaid impugned order, the DRT stayed the order dated 13.06.2023 u/S. 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act') and also stayed the issuance of sale certificate in favour of the auction purchaser in the auction held on 11.10.2023 of the secured assets subject to petitioners- borrowers complying with the following conditions :
(i) The petitioners-borrowers within two months shall deposit Rs.1,13,00,000/- (One Crore Thirteen Lakh) in four equal installments in the following manner :
(a) First instalment of Rs.28,25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh Twenty Five Thousand) till 06.12.2023;
(b) second instalment of Rs.28,25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh Twenty Five Thousand) till 21.12.2023;
(c) third instalment of Rs.28,25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh Twenty Five Thousand) till 06.01.2024; and
(d) fourth instalment of Rs.28,25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Lakh Twenty Five Thousand) till 22.01.2024.
3(ii) The borrowers shall deposit along with the last instalment, an amount equal to 10% of the auction price.
(iii) The aforesaid amount shall be locked in interest bearing account and shall remain subject to the final outcome in S.A. No.949/2023.
(iv) In case the aforesaid conditions are not complied with within the prescribed time, the Bank shall be at liberty to proceed to execute the order of the District Magistrate, Bhopal dated 13.06.2023.
1.2 S.A. No.949/2023 has now been listed on 07.02.2024 before the DRT to enable petitioners-borrowers to file rejoinder and for further hearing.
2. Learned counsel for rival parties are heard on the question of admission so also final disposal.
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that he is conscious of the fact that he has not availed the remedy of appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (for short 'DRAT') u/S.18 of SARFAESI Act but contends by referring to decision of Apex Court in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95 that the question of law involved herein is purely legal without any factual dispute and, therefore, this Court can very well consider and decide the issue without insisting upon availing alternative statutory remedy of appeal.
3.1 Learned counsel for petitioners Shri Akshat Agrawal urges that DRT while passing the impugned order has misapplied and misread the real import of the decision of Apex Court in Canara Bank Vs. M. Amarender Reddy and another, (2017) 4 SCC 735 a n d Celir LLP Vs. M/s Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Pvt. Ltd. and others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1209. It is 4 contended that both the said decisions of Apex Court are founded on distinct factual matrix. The decision in the case of M. Amrinder Reddy (supra) lays down the law qua the unamended provision of Section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act whereas in the case of Celir LLP (supra), the statutory provision under consideration was the amended Section 13(8) of SARFAESI Act. Thus, it is contended that both these decisions do not stand on the same footing and thus cannot be compared.
4. After having heard learned counsel for rival parties, this Court is of the considered view that the well established principle laid down by catena of decisions of Apex Court as regards exercise of power of judicial review without insisting upon availing of statutory remedy is available in the cases involving following issues :-
(i) violation of any constitutional provision;
(ii) violation of any statutory provision;
(iii) violation of any of the principles of natural justice;
(iv) the impugned order being bereft of jurisdiction; and
(v) the impugned order being tainted with mala fides.
4.1 In the instant case, the question appears to be the applicability of a
particular decision of the Apex Court in the attending facts and circumstances.
4.2 This case thus does not fall in any of the exceptions laid down by the Apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & others, (1998) 8 SCC 1 or any of the subsequent decisions following the law laid down in Whirlpool Corporation (supra). There is neither any mala fide alleged against any person in the present case nor there is any allegation of breach of any constitutional or statutory provision. Neither the impugned order suffers from any lack of jurisdiction.
54.3 It appears that the issue of wrong application of a particular judgment of the Apex Court is being confused by the learned counsel for petitioners to fall within the exceptions of violation of statutory provision for exercise of power of judicial review.
4.4 This Court is afraid that it cannot endorse the aforesaid view of the learned counsel for petitioners.
5. Consequent upon the aforesaid discussion, this Court thus finds that there is no case for interference in the present matter where the grounds raised are more to do with the facts and wrong application of a particular decision of Apex Court, rather than any of the recognized exceptions to the exercise of power of judicial review/power of superintendent.
6. Consequently, this Court refraining from interfering on merits extends liberty to petitioners-borrowers to assail the impugned order of DRT before DRAT u/S.18 of the SARFAESI Act in accordance with law.
7. With the aforesaid liberty, miscellaneous petition stands dismissed.
(SHEEL NAGU) (DEVNARAYAN MISHRA)
JUDGE JUDGE
DV
DINESH VERMA
2023.12.07
17:41:47 +05'30'