Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(SC) 1708

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
ICICI Bank Ltd. etc.etc. - Appellant
Versus
Umakanta Mohapatra Etc.Etc. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 10243-10250 OF 2018 (Arising Out Of Special Leave To Appeal (C) NOs. 9145-9152 OF 2014) With Civil Appeal Nos. 10251-10265 OF 2018 @ SLP (C) NOs. 16758-16772 OF 2015
Decided on : 05-10-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. E.R. Kumar, Ms. Tanya Chaudhry, M/s. Parekh & Co.
For the Respondent: Mr. Kedar Nath Tripathy, Mr. Ramendra Mohan Patnaik, Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Mr. Vinay Ratnakar, Mr. S.K. Patri, Mr. T. Samantray, Ms. Baby Devi Bonia, Mr. S.K. Rajora, Dr. V. P. Appan, Mr. Narender S. Sangwan, Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Mr. Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Mr. Aman Shukla, Mr. Vishal Arun, Mr. T. Mahipal, Mr. Prakash Ranjan Nayak

High Courts should not entertain matters under the SARFAESI Act and grant interim orders in favor of Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) contrary to the settled legal position.

Headnote:
SARFAESI - High Court's Entertaining Matters under SARFAESI Act - The court disapproved the High Court's approach of entertaining matters under the SARFAESI Act and granting interim orders in favor of Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) despite settled legal position.
Fact of the Case:

The writ petition was found to be not maintainable, leading to the setting aside of all orders passed, including the impugned order.
Finding of the Court:

The court disapproved the High Court's approach and held that the writ petition was not maintainable, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.
Issues: Entertainment of matters under the SARFAESI Act by the High Courts and maintainability of the writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the settled legal position and disapproved the High Court's approach of entertaining matters under the SARFAESI Act despite the well-settled legal position.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, and all orders passed, including the impugned order, were set aside.

ORDER :

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Despite several judgments of this Court, including a judgment by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha, as recently as on 30.01.2018, in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Anr. vs. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85, the High Courts continue to entertain matters which arise under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), and keep granting interim orders in favour of persons who are Non-Performing Assets (NPAs).

4. The writ petition itself was not maintainable, as a result of which, in view of our recent judgment, which has followed earlier judgments of this Court, held as follows:-

(1997) 6 SCC 450

“32. When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this tendency stops.””

5. The writ petition, in this case, being not maintainable, obviously, all orders passed must perish, including the impugned order, which is set aside.

6. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.

7. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 1708

High Courts should not entertain matters under the SARFAESI Act and grant interim orders in favor of Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) contrary to the settled legal position.

Cases Referred (2)