Delhi High Court - Orders
Adishwar Nath Gupta & Anr vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 12 September, 2023
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9230/2023 & CM APPL 35122/2023
ADISHWAR NATH GUPTA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Neena Malhotra and Mr. Sanam,
Advocates
Versus
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Anmol Panwar and Ms. Neha
Yadav, Advocates for respondent No.1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
ORDER
% 12.09.2023
1. This petition seeks to challenge notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 2002).
2. This Court in the petition being W.P.(C) 9155/2023 titled Vanya Jain v. Ambit Finvest Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.1 has dealt with the similar controversy and has held that the writ petition challenging the notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 is not maintainable. Paragraphs nos. 37 to 39 of the said decision reads as under:-
37. It is of importance to consider that the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Phoenix ARC (supra), was in the context of actions taken by a secured creditor under Section 14, from which appeal lies under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. In other words, the Hon'ble Supreme Court exhorted that ordinarily writ petitions ought not to be entertained that assail actions taken under Section 14, which expressly allow judicial intervention in the form of an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.1
2023:DHC:5265 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 18:40:11
38. This court is of the opinion that the judgement of Phoenix ARC (supra), in relation to the abuse of the process of law, applies with greater rigour against actions taken under provisions of law which are merely aimed at initiating proceedings, and are at a stage at which the Act concerned itself does not allow an appeal. Key distinctions between the stages from which appeals or applications can be preferred to challenge a decision of a creditor, needs to be appreciated. In this context, this court may beneficially refer to another pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Authorized office, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. The material part of the judgement reads as under:
"6. ...The writ petition was filed in undue haste in March 2015 immediately after disposal of objections under Section 13(3-A). The legislative scheme, in order to expedite the recovery proceedings, does not envisage grievance redressal procedure at this stage, by virtue of the explanation added to Section 17 of the Act, by Amendment Act 30 of 2004, as follows:
Explanation.--For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the communication of the reasons to the borrower by the secured creditor for not having accepted his representation or objection or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons to the borrower shall not entitle the person (including borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under this sub-section."
7. The Section 13(4) notice along with possession notice under Rule 8 was issued on 21-4-2015. The remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was now available to the respondent if aggrieved..."
39. This court is therefore of the opinion that in the instant case, the respondents, by issuing the demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act have merely attempted to comply with the statutory requirements, that enable them to proceed under the statutory framework of the SARFAESI Act. The stage of Section 13(3A) has been expressly made non-appealable by virtue of the proviso to Section 13(3A) and the explanation to Section 17(1). It would thus be a disservice to the will of the legislature, if this court through the means of the present writ petition, circumvents the statutory process. The petitioner in order to assail the actions of the respondents has to await the stage of Section This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 18:40:11 13(4), and thereafter approach the DRT to agitate its concerns. The present petition is therefore found to be premature.
[Emphasis supplied]
3. In view of the facts and situation involved in the instant petition, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all contentions before the DRT.
4. Accordingly the petition is dismissed alongwith pending application.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J SEPTEMBER 12, 2023 p'ma This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 16/09/2023 at 18:40:11