TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 25X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have been entertained and the interim order granted for the mere asking without assigning special reasons, and that too without even granting opportunity to the Appellant to contest the maintainability of the writ petition and failure to notice the subsequent developments in the interregnum. The opinion of the Division Bench that the counter affidavit having subsequently been filed, stay/modification could be sought of the interim order cannot be considered sufficient justification to have declined interference. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Civil Appeal No. 1281 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (c) No.24610 of 2015) - - - Dated:- 30-1-2018 - Mr. Rohinton Fali Nariman And Mr. Navin Sinha JJ. For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR, Ms. Megha Karnwal, Adv., Ms. Mansi Kapur, Adv.And Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Himinder Lal, AOR JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal assails an interim order dated 24.04.2015 passed in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, staying further proceedings at the stage of Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, beyond the control of the Respondent. The failure of the Bank to consider the request for regularisation of the loan account, the absence of a right to appeal under Section 17 against the order passed under Section 13(3A), the Respondent was left with no option but to prefer the writ application as the Respondent genuinely desired to discharge the loans. The collateral security offered included agricultural lands also, which had to be excluded under Section 31 of the SARFAESI Act. There had been violation of the principles of natural justice. A large number of similar writ applications are pending before the High Court preferred by the concerned borrowers, but the Bank has singled out the present Respondent alone for a challenge. 6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. Normally this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is loathe to interfere with an interim order passed in a pending proceeding before the High Court, except in special circumstances, to prevent manifest injustice or abuse of the process of the court. In the present case, the facts are not in dispute. The discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wer 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 the borrower) to make an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal under this sub-section. 8. The Section 13(4) notice along with possession notice under Rule 8 was issued on 21.04.2015. The remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was now available to the Respondent if aggrieved. These developments were not brought on record or placed before the Court when the impugned interim order came to be passed on 24.04.2015. The writ petition was clearly not instituted bonafide, but patently to stall further action for recovery. There is no pleading why the remedy available under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal was not efficacious and the compelling reasons for by-passing the same. Unfortunately, the High Court also did not dwell upon the same or record any special reasons for grant of interim relief by direction to deposit. 9. The statement of objects and reasons of the SARFAESI Act states that the banking and financial sector in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act. 11. In Satyawati Tandon (supra), the High Court had restrained further proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Act. Upon a detailed consideration of the statutory scheme under the SARFAESI Act, the availability of remedy to the aggrieved under Section 17 before the Tribunal and the appellate remedy under Section 18 before the Appellate Tribunal, the object and purpose of the legislation, it was observed that a writ petition ought not to be entertained in view of the alternate statutory remedy available holding :- 43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ieved under Section 17 was an efficacious remedy and the institution directly under Article 226 was not sustainable, relying upon Satyawati Tandon (Supra), observing : 27. No doubt an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 but by now it is well settled that where a statute provides efficacious and adequate remedy, the High Court will do well in not entertaining a petition under Article 226. On misplaced considerations, statutory procedures cannot be allowed to be circumvented. *** 28 .In our view, there was no justification whatsoever for the learned Single Judge to allow the borrower to bypass the efficacious remedy provided to him under Section 17 and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction in his favour when he had disentitled himself for such relief by his conduct. The Single Judge was clearly in error in invoking his extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 in light of the peculiar facts indicated above. The Division Bench also erred in affirming the erroneous order of the Single Judge. 15. A similar view was taken in Punjab National Bank and another vs. Imperial Gift House and others, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if the petitioner is able to show that its case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad , Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and some other judgments, then the High Court may, after considering all the relevant parameters and public interest, pass an appropriate interim order. 17. The writ petition ought not to have been entertained and the interim order granted for the mere asking without assigning special reasons, and that too without even granting opportunity to the Appellant to contest the maintainability of the writ petition and failure to notice the subsequent developments in the interregnum. The opinion of the Division Bench that the counter affidavit having subsequently been filed, stay/modification could be sought of the interim order cannot be considered sufficient justification to have declined interference. 18. We cannot help but disapprove the approach of the High Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. and Another , 1997 (6) SCC 450, observing :- 32 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
