IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
Ghambhirsinh Keshubha Jadeja Proprietor Jadeja Enterprise - Petitioner
Versus
India Home Loan Ltd. - Respondent
R/Special Civil Application No. 1045 of 2023
Decided On : 25-01-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Section 17 – By this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for reliefs – Held, According to learned advocate, petitioner has already paid to respondent No.1 – It was therefore, prayed that till Tribunal hears the restoration application, petitioner may be protected – In view of decision of Apex Court in case of Phoenix Arc Private Limited Versus reported this petition cannot be entertained at this stage more particularly, when petitioner has already approached Debts Recovery Tribunal under provisions of section 17 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Dismissed.
ORDER :
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass the order to quash and set aside notice which is given by the Metropolitan Magistrate dtd. 2/1/203.
(C) Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to pass order of interim relief the notice dtd. 2/1/2023 may kindly be stayed execution, implementation and operation may be stayed.
(D) Any other and further reliefs may kindly be granted in the interest of justice."
2. Brief facts of the case are as under :
The respondent issued notice u/s. 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "SARFAESI ACT")on 20/08/2019 calling upon the petitioner to pay Rs.25,01,737/- with further interest and charges. However, the petitioner has failed to repay the same.
The respondent approached the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The Metropolitan Court, Ahmedabad issued notice dated 02.01.2023 under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to seize the property.
The petitioner approached DRT challenging the said notice by filing Securitization Application Diary No. 655/2022.
Since the DRT-I was not available at that time, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.12614 of 2022 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 06.07.2022 directed the respondent-financial institution not to take any coercive steps.
Thereafter, as the petitioner could not remove the office objection in Securitization Application but stay was continued and petitioner has paid Rs.9000/- before the Debts Recovery Tribunal on 28.06.2022.
It is the case of the petitioner that since he was an illiterate person, he could not remove the office objection and therefore, the matter was dismissed for default on 20.08.2022.
In the meanwhile, Special Civil Application No.12614 of 2022 came up for hearing before this Court and this Court by order dated 16.11.2022 relegated the petitioner back to DRT as DRT was available.
The petitioner had in the meanwhile filed restoration application on 6.01.2023 before the Chamber Judge being Securitization Application No.20/2023 in connection with Securitization Application No. 655/2022 which is pending adjudication.
It is the case of the petitioner that fresh notice was issued on 5.01.2023 to take the possession of the property in question.
Being aggrieved by such action on part of the respondents, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
3. Learned advocate Mr. Vaishya submitted that the petitioner has already filed restoration application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal which is pending. It was submitted that during pendency of the application before the DRT, a fresh notice is given by the respondent for taking the possession on 05.01.2023. According to learned advocate Mr. Vaishya, the petitioner has already paid Rs. 10 lakh to respondent No.1. It was therefore, prayed that till the Tribunal hears the restoration application, the petitioner may be protected.
4. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Phoenix Arc Private Limited Versus Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir reported in (2022) 5 SCC 345 this petition cannot be entertained at this stage more particularly, when the petitioner has already approached Debts Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
5. The Hon'bl
Thansingh Nathmal v. Supt. of Taxes
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa
Phoenix Arc Private Limited Versus Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir
City and Industrial Development Corpn. Vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala
Sadhana Lodh Vs. National insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Ors.
State Bank of India Vs. Allied Chemical Laboratories and Anr.
Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad
(1) Writ petitions filed against proposed action under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act is not maintainable and/or entertainable at all.(2) Recovery of debt – High Court should have been extremely caref....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of exhaustion of statutory remedies and the limited circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdict....
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.