Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Naresh Kalyan Rawatani S/O Late Shri ... vs The District Collector And District ... on 2 December, 2023
[2023:RJ-JP:37369]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16685/2019
Naresh Kalyan Rawatani S/o Late Shri Kalyan Rawatani, Aged
About 56 Years, R/o House No. 3-K-23, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The District Collector And District Magistrate, Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
2. India Infoline Finance Limited, Ambition Tower 307-312,
Third Floor, Agrasen Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
Through Vice President- Vibhor Trivedi.
3. Uttam Kumar Asrani S/o Shri Indra Prakas, R/o Plot No.
419-A, Adarsh Nagar, Near Geeta Bhawan, Jaipur And
Uttam Kumar Asrani C/o Kishan T. Asrani R/o 5, Shankar
Bhawan, Film Colony, Chaura Rasta, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
4. Smt. Sunita Asrani W/o Shri Uttam Kumar Asrani, R/o
Plot No. 419-A, Adarsh Nagar, Near Geeta Bhawan, Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
5. Sunita Asrani W/o Shri Uttam Kumar Asrani, C/o Kishan T.
Asrani R/o 5, Shankar Bhawan, Film Colony, Chaura
Rasta, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Mahesh Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vineet Sharma, Adv. with Mr.Aakash Sharma, Adv. & Mr.Ammar Zaidi, Adv. for No.2.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 02/12/2023
1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 15.05.2018 passed by the District Magistrate, Jaipur in Case No.117/2017 titled as India Infoline Finance Limited Vs. Uttam Kumar Asrani & Ors. under Section 14 of the Securitisation and (Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:49:32 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:37369] (2 of 3) [CW-16685/2019] Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act').
2. The brief facts are that Uttam Kumar Asrani and Sunita Asrani took loan from the respondent No.2 and Plot No.419-A Adarsh Nagar, Near Geeta Bhawan, Jaipur measuring 265.11 sq. ft was mortgaged for securing the loan. The borrower defaulted in repayment of loan and account was declared Non-Performing Asset (NPA). The proceedings under Section 13 of SARFAESI Act were initiated and culminated in passing of the impugned order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. In the meantime, the mortgaged plot along with the two adjoining plots were developed by the developer and the petitioner is a purchaser of a Flat No.202 build therein.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent raises a preliminary objection that the petitioner has statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. He relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Ors. reported in [(2010)8 SCC 110].
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bona-fide purchaser of the flat and writ should be entertained.
5. Paras Nos.42 & 51 of Satyawati Tondon (supra) case are quoted, as under:-
"42. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If respondent No. 1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1). The expression 'any person' used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It (Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:49:32 PM) [2023:RJ-JP:37369] (3 of 3) [CW-16685/2019] takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective.
51. In CCT, v. Indian Explosives Ltd., the Court reversed an order passed by the Division Bench of Orissa High Court quashing the show-cause notice issued to the respondent under the Orissa Sales Tax Act by observing that the High Court had completely ignored the parameters laid down by this Court in a large number of cases relating to exhaustion of alternative remedy."
6. Considering that the petitioner has a statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act which is a self-contained Act, enacted with the specific purpose, no case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction.
7. The writ petition is dismissed relegating the petitioner to the alternative remedy.
(AVNEESH JHINGAN), J Himanshu/HS/109 (Downloaded on 08/12/2023 at 08:49:32 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)