TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1411X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cision in K.C. Mathew's case, we are not inclined to interfere with the interim order passed by the writ court. Accordingly, interim order and extension of the same are vacated. Writ appeal is allowed. - WA No. 275 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 14-2-2020 - S. Manikumar, C.J. And S.P. Chaly, J. For the Appellant : A.S.P. Kurup, SC and Sadchith P. Kurup, Adv. For the Respondent : N.K. Karnis JUDGMENT S. Manikumar, C.J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to an interim order dated 10.02.2020 in W.P.(C).1179 of 2020 by which the writ court extended interim stay of the proceedings on deposit of ₹ 50 lakhs. For brevity the order dated 10.02.2020 is extracted hereunder: The learned counsel for the petitioner submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nourable Apex Court in Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore and others Vs. Mathew K.C. [AIR 2018 SC 676] : [(2018) 3 SCC 85]. In the instant case, the learned single judge had gone a further step ahead and extended the interim order by granting a stay for more than the period sought for by the party in the writ petition itself. Challenging this order granted by the learned single judge the present writ appeal is filed. 4. Grounds raised by the appellants in this writ appeal are stated hereunder: 2. It is submitted that the learned single judge went totally wrong in invoking the discretionary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a commercial matter wherein a sum of more than ₹ 7 Crores i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that unwarranted exercise of discretionary jurisdiction in commercial matters including the Securitisation Act, being strongly deprecated by the Honourable Apex Court, especially with regard to the frivolous litigations, the learned single judge ought not to have passed the impugned order interdicting further proceedings by the bank. 5. Added further, inviting attention of this Court to the judgment reported in Mathew K.C. (supra), Mr. Sadjith P. Kurup, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that writ petition ought not have been entertained and that interim order should not be granted. Relevant portions quoted by the learned counsel read as under: 16. It is the solemn duty of the Court to apply the correct law witho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of such bodies/institutions, which (sic will) ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation. Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters. Of course, 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 Corporation. v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce amount alone has been received for the sale of another property, not subject matter of the mortgage and that if the respondent is given ten days time she would settle the entire amount payable to the bank. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused materials on record. In K.C. Mathew's case, Hon'ble Apex Court stated that writ petition against proceedings initiated against SARFAESI Act, 2002 is not maintainable, in the light of the alternate remedy provided for under the statute. It is also made clear that in financial matters grant of ex parte interim orders can have a deleterious effect and it is not sufficient to say that the aggrieved has the remedy to move for vacating the interim order. Following the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
