IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Satpal Singh Kohli & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Canara Bank – Respondent
LPA 225 of 2023
Decided On : 05-04-2023
SARFAESI Act - NPA Classification - Section 13(2) - Summary of Acts and Sections: SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Section 13, Section 17 - The court discussed the classification of accounts as NPA under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the remedies available under Section 13(3A) and Section 17. The court emphasized the borrower's obligation to submit a reply and raise grievances under Section 13(3A) and the option to appeal under Section 17.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellants availed loans from Canara Bank, and their accounts were declared as Non-Performing Assets (NPA). They challenged the NPA classification and sought relief from the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Appellants have remedies under Section 13(3A) and Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to raise their grievances and appeal the actions taken by the bank.
Issues: NPA classification, remedies available to the borrower under SARFAESI Act, 2002
Ratio Decidendi: The borrower has an obligation to raise grievances under Section 13(3A) and can appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Final Decision: The court declined the admission of the writ appeal, upholding the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 16120/2023
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
LPA 225/2023 & CM APPL. 16119/2023
3. The present Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) is arising out of judgment dated 22.02.2023 delivered by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C.) No. 13530/2022 titled Satpal Singh Kohli & Another Vs. Canara Bank.
4. The facts of the case reveal that the Appellants have availed various loans/cash credit facilities from Respondent/Canara Bank since 2013. In total, six loan accounts were being operated with the Respondent Bank. Out of the six loan accounts, four were in respect of cash credit facilities, working capital. The remaining two housing loans were in the joint name of the Appellants.
5. It has been stated by the Appellants that on account of financial crisis from 01.04.2022, the accounts in respect of M/s Pal Enterprises became irregular, and finally, they were classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). The Appellants before this Court, being aggrieved by declaration of accounts as NPA and against the action of the bank under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as `the SARFAESI Act, 2002'), came up before this Court praying for the following reliefs:
"a) issue writ/order/direction quashing and setting aside the action of Respondent bank declaring and classifying all the six accounts of the Petitioners and M/s Pal enterprises as NPA along with quashing and setting aside of the impugned Notices issued under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 08.08.2022 and 17.08.2022 by the Respondent Bank; and
b) issue writ/order/direction to the Respondent Bank to regularize all the six accounts of the Petitioners and M/s Pal Enterprises; and/or
c) pass any other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
6. An interim order dated 19.09.2022 was passed in the matter restraining the Respondent Bank from taking further action. Thereafter, an application was preferred by the respondent Canara Bank being C.M. No.1648/2022 for vacating the stay order dated 19.09.2022.
7. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the notices dated 08.08.2022 and 17.08.2022 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 giving liberty to the Appellants to prefer an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the Appellants have a remedy to raise their grievances in terms of Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002- which has, admittedly, not been availed of.
8. Liberty has been granted to the Appellants to raise their grievances under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, and in case the Appellants have any further grievance in the matter, then they are given a liberty to avail appropriate remedy available is under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
9. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has vehemently argued before this Court that the Appellants does not have any remedy against the order declaring the account of the Petitioners as NPA, and therefore, the petition could not have been disposed of with liberty to the Petitioners to raise their grievances under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and thereafter, under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
10. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has submitted that the Respondent Bank has not granted any opportunity to the Appellants. There were various anomalies, and in case a notice was issued to the Appellants, the Appellants would have clarified the issue and there would have been no necessity to proceed under the statutory provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
11. It has been vehemently argued by the Appellants before this Court that in the case of Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, (2022) 5 SCC 345, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
Borrowers have remedies under Section 13(3A) and Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to challenge NPA classification and appeal actions taken by the bank.
The High Court should not adjudicate on the classification of NPA, and recovery proceedings should not be halted by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The statutory scheme of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Act, 2002) does not provide for a legal remedy until the Section 13(4....
The classification of loan accounts as NPAs and the subsequent actions taken by the bank are not justiciable at the writ stage, and the petitioners should avail the remedy under Section 17 of the SAR....
The classification of a borrower's account as NPA under the SARFAESI Act is not justiciable in writ jurisdiction until measures under section 13(4) are invoked, necessitating the exhaustion of statut....
The legislative intent to prevent judicial or quasi-judicial intervention at the stage of issuance of demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act.
Classification of an account as NPA under SARFAESI Act is not subject to judicial review and requires the borrower to seek recourse through statutory appeal under Section 17.
Civil courts lack jurisdiction over matters already proceeding under SARFAESI Act, reaffirming that disputes on NPA classifications must be resolved within DRT as per Sections 17 and 34 of the Act.
The SARFAESI Act prevails over the MSME Act, and the classification of accounts as NPA is not justiciable at the stage of objection rejection under Section 13(3A).
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.