Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kamal Ranjit Kaur vs Iifl Home Loan Finance Ltd. And Others on 4 August, 2023
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
MANPREET SINGH 2023.08.09 10:00 CWP-16563-2023 2023: PHHC:101058-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (109) CWP-16563-2023 Date of Decision: 04.08.2023 Kamal Ranjeet Kaur ...Petitioner Versus ITFL Home Loan Finance Ltd. and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE Present: Mr. Gursewak Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vineet Sehgal, Advocate for the respondents. ok 36 ok LISA GILL, J (ORAL)
1. Petitioner has challenged the proceedings initiated by respondents No.1 to 3 against her under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act') including notice dated 03.07.2023 (Annexure P-7), notice dated 06.02.2023 (Annexure P-4) under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, notice dated 25.04.2023 (Annexure P-6) under Section 13 (4) of SARFAESI Act while claiming violation of RBI circulars dated 27.03.2020, 17.04.2020, 23.05.2020, 07.04.2021 and 17.06.2021.
2. Various arguments have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner including the argument that insurance company i.e. respondents No. 4 and 5 is not releasing the insured amount leading to difficulty in deposit of the dues towards respondents No.1 to 3 whereas it was incumbent upon respondents No.4 and 5 to have discharged the debt.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment MANPREET SINGH 2023.08.09 10:00 CWP-16563-2023 2023: PHHC:101058-DB
4. Apart from the fact that petitioner has alternate efficacious remedy for redressal of his grievance as has been laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010 (8) SCC 110, and M/s South Indian Bank Ltd. and others vs. Naveen Mathew Philip and others, 2023 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 771, it is to be noted that relief is being sought by the petitioner qua respondents No.1 to 3 which is admittedly a private non-banking Finance Company, therefore, in any case no ground for interference in the matter is made out in this writ petition in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Gainful reference in this regard can be made to judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Phoenix ARC Private Limited. Vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and others, 2022 AIR (SC) 1045, wherein it has been held as under:-
"Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that a writ petition against the private financial institution - ARC - appellant herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proposed action/actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act can be said to be not maintainable. In the present case, the ARC proposed to take action/actions under the SARFAESI Act to recover the borrowed amount as a secured creditor. The ARC as such cannot be said to be performing public functions which are normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. During the course of a commercial transaction and under the contract, the bank/ARC lent the money to the borrowers herein and therefore the said activity of the bank/ARC cannot be said to be as performing a public function which is normally expected to be performed by the State authorities. If proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any proposed action is to be taken and the borrower is aggrieved by any of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, borrower has to avail the remedy under the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would lie and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable. Therefore, decisions of this Court in the cases of Praga Tools Corporation v. Shri C.A. Imanual and others, (1969) 1 SCC 585 and Ramesh Ahluwalia vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 12 SCC 331 relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the borrowers are not of any assistance to the borrowers."
| attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-16563-2023 2023: PHHC:101058-DB
5. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any ground for interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
6. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy/remedies as available to her in accordance with law.
7. It is clarified that there is no expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
9. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, stand disposed of. (LISA GILL) JUDGE (RITU TAGORE) JUDGE August 04, 2023 Manpreet Whether speaking/reasoned --:: Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MANPREET SINGH 2023.08.09 10:00 | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment