JUDGMENT :

1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners against the nationalised banks/private financial institutions challenging the notices issued either under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation And Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as "SARFAESI Act, 2002") or under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

2. Counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of these writ petitions as an alternative efficacious statutory remedy is available to the petitioners under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

3. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is no factual dispute in these matters and the petitioners have filed these writ petitions as the respondent-financial institutions are not following the R.B.I. Guidelines. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent-bank/financial institutions are not obeying the guidelines of R.B.I. with regard to moratorium. Counsel further submits that there is no remedy available to them challenging the notices under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

4. In support of their contentions, counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in the matter of Transcon Skycity Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. ICICI Bank and Ors., Writ Petition LD-VC No.28 of 2020 decided on 11.04.2020 where in para 9 of 14 it has been held as under:-

"14. .............

...9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered their respective submissions, I am of the view that the protection sought to be availed of by the plaintiffs by virtue of the RBI circulars would clearly apply to all amounts due after 1st March 2020. In the instant case, the plaintiffs were liable to pay Rs. 1.71 crores as of 12th January 2020. There is no doubt that defendant no. 1 has a vested right to sell the pledged shares. The sale of shares at this moment would appear to be prompted by anxiety to recover the amount of Rs. 1.71 crores that is overdue from the plaintiffs. In view of the willingness of the plaintiffs to regularize the account and considering the fact that the RBI has clearly opined that the moratorium can be granted for three months on payment of all installments, it would appear that it is only the installments falling due between 1st March 2020 and 31st May 2020 that are contemplated under the Covid-19 Regulatory Package, as seen from paragraph 2 of RBI Circular dated 27th March 2020, annexed at Exhibit- DD to the plaint. The Press Release dated 27th March 2020 on 'Statement of Developmental and Regulatory Policies' seems to suggest that moratorium would apply in respect of payment of installments of terms loans outstanding "as of 1st March 2020". That would seem to include even the amounts due to the 1st defendant from the plaintiffs in this suit but the Statement of Developmental and Regulatory Policies is only a Press Release setting out the policies to address stress in financial conditions caused by Covid-19. They do not constitute the directions to the banks."

5. Counsel for the petitioners further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. The State of Bihar and Ors., Civil Appeal No.5728 of 2021, decided on 24.09.2021 where in para 24 it has been held as under:-

"24. The issues raised by the Appellant are questions of law which require, upon a comprehensive reading of the Bihar Electricity Act, a determination of whether tax can be levied on the supply of electricity by a power generator (which also manufactures sugar) supplying electricity to a distributor; and whether the first Respondent has the legislative competence to levy duty on the sale of electricity to an intermediary distributor in view of the decision of this Court in State of AP (supra). The question of whether the Appellant is liable to file returns Under Sections 6B(1) and 5A of the Act is directly related to the issue