Back
2023 Supreme(Del) 4193
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
M/s Premium Moulding And Pressing Pvt. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. – Respondents
CM(M) 864 of 2023
Decided On : 22-05-2023
Mr. Sanjiv Bahl, Mr. Eklavya Bahl and Mr. Pawas Agarwal, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sanjeev Sagar and Mr. Shivang Bansal, Advocates, for the Respondents.
Mohammad Nausheen Samar, Advocate, for R-2.
The Court may interfere in a petition despite the availability of an equally efficacious remedy if there is non-compliance with a specific order from a higher court.
Headnote:
SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Alternate Remedy - Court deems it appropriate to interfere in the present petition despite the availability of an equally efficacious remedy under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner had a grievance regarding the non-disposal of an application by the DRT-1, despite a specific order from the Division Bench of the Court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court acknowledged the availability of an equally efficacious remedy under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, but deemed it appropriate to interfere due to the non-compliance with the specific order from the Division Bench.
Issues: Non-disposal of application by DRT-1, Availability of an alternate remedy under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, Invocation of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: Despite the availability of an alternate and efficacious remedy under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Court deemed it appropriate to interfere due to the non-compliance with a specific order from the Division Bench.
Final Decision: The Court directed the DRT-1 to prepone the application and instructed the parties to assist in disposing of the application within a specified timeframe.
JUDGMENT
Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (Oral)
[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]
CM APPL. 27250/2023 (for exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CM(M) 864/2023
3. Petitioner, through Mr. Sanjiv Bahl, learned counsel submits that vide the order dated 27.11.2018, the learned Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 12674/2018, between the same parties had directed the DRT-1 to dispose of the application bearing MA No. 27/2016. However, till date the said application for one reason or the other has not been disposed of.
4. Mr. Sanjiv Bahl, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this is the only grievance of the petitioner before this Court today.
5. Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner has an equally efficacious and alternate remedy before the learned DRAT by inviting the attention of this Court to sub-Section 6 of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Mr. Sagar submits that the procedure under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ought not to have been invoked when an equally efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner.
6. This Court has considered the submissions of the parties, the arguments of Mr. Sagar that alternate and efficacious provisions are available, cannot be quarelled with. However, since the learned Division Bench of this Court had passed a specific order which appears to have not been fully complied with, this Court deems it appropriate to interfere in the present petition.
7. Keeping in view the fact that the learned DRT-1 has posted the matter for hearing of MA No. 27/2016 to 04.10.2023, this Court directs the learned DRT to prepone the said application from 04.10.2023 to 19.07.2023.
8. Learned counsel for the parties are expected to appear on 19.07.2023 and assist the DRT in disposing of the application on the date so fixed or within a period of next 30 days.
9. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.
