IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Sameer Jain, J.
Jaipur Texweaving Park Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Textiles, Udyog Bhawan New Delhi and ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12090 of 2018
Decided On : 09-03-2022
Constitution of India.1950 – Article 226 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 13(2), 13(3) ,13(4) , 13(3A), 17 , 35 – Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2002 - Rule 8(1) - Secured asset is an immovable property, authorised officer - Power of High Court to issue certain writs - Application against measures to recover secured debts - The provisions of this Act to override other laws - Held, Court is of view that writ petition is liable to be dismissed with a cost of amount on account of misrepresentation, not impleading consortium banks as necessary parties and praying for relief against them in their absence, not availing alternative remedy and keeping Court in dark by getting ex-parte stay vide order dated during course of strike and by giving an impression to Court that there are several members of petitioner who have paid their entire dues and in parallel defending matter before Debts Recovery Tribunal whereby they were successful in avoiding payment of due of amount and interest thereon - Applications disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. Being aggrieved by the notice dated 31.05.2017 u/s 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short hereinafter to be referred as “SARFAESI Act, 2002”) as well as notice u/s 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 dated 09.03.2018 and for violation of terms and conditions of the sanction letter dated 12.03.2009 issued by the Ministry of Textiles and for violation of Fundamental Rights enshrined under Articles -14, 19 & 300A of the Constitution of India, the present writ petition has been filed with the following prayers;
a) Call for the entire record of proceedings from the respondent;
b) declare the entire impugned action of the respondents, and notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act dated 31.05.2017 to be arbitrary, unlawful and unconstitutional and set aside (Annexure-4);
c) declare the entire impugned action of the respondents, and notice under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act dated 09.03.2018 to be arbitrary, unlawful and unconstitutional and set aside (Annexure-20);
d) declare and set aside the entire action initiated by the respondents under the SARFAESI Act to be illegal, perverse, unconstitutional and void ab initio;
e) direct the respondent no. 1 & 5 to intervene in the matter and take necessary & appropriate actions as per law to protect & preserve the first textile park of Rajasthan keeping in view of the aims & objectives of the 10th Five Year Plan;
f) in the alternative, this Hon’ble Court may appoint a Court commissioner having the understanding of the commercial laws and transactions to bifurcate the categories of members who are willing to pay the amount, who have paid the entire amount and further who have not paid the amount and further for recovery of the amount whatsoever, to be made from the members who have not paid the amount by disposing their respective sheds and any outstanding amounts thereafter be recovered by disposing off the Common area and any other such area in the project which is not operational and is not put to industrial use.
Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner.”
2. FACTS OF THE CASE:
(ii) On 21.09.2005, the petitioner entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) with respondent No. 2 and the project of the petitioner was approved by the Project Approval Committee on 25.11.2005 and allotment letter and lease deed were executed in favour of the petitioner by RIICO for a period of 99 years.
(iii) On 18.09.2006, individuals/juristic persons applied for membership of the said park by way of share subscription agreement. On 23.05.2008 and 27.02.2012, security trustee i.e. respondents No. 2 to 4 entered into an agreement for creating and maintaining security interest over the said land in terms of financing the Amendatory Security Trustee Agreement executed on 27.02.2012.
(iv) Common Loan Agreement dated 23.05.2012 was entered in between the petitioner and consortium of 15 banks and financial institutions through respondent No. 3 for fulfilling financial needs for the development of the project.
(v) On 12.03.2009 sanction letter releasing the second installment of grant-in-aid was issued by Ministry of Textiles to the petitioner. On account of default, on 02.02.2016 a letter was issued by respondent No. 2 stating therein that the members of the petitioner company who are intending to repay their arrears and respective shares in the loan facility account, their respective Units would be kept o
Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad
Harbanslal Sahnia and Anr. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.
Kanhaiya Lal Vs. State of Maharashtra
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by L.Rs. vs. Jagannath (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors.
Shalini Shyam Shetty and Ors. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil
U.P. Junior Doctors' Action Committee Vs. B. Sheetal Nandwani and Ors.
(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....
A writ petition cannot be entertained against SARFAESI Act proceedings when an adequate statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is available.
The court emphasized the legislative intent to minimize judicial intervention until the stage of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and highlighted the availability of statutory remedies under the Act, h....
Writ petitions under Article 226 not maintainable against private scheduled banks' SARFAESI actions; borrowers must exhaust Section 17 remedy before Debts Recovery Tribunal; High Courts cannot direct....
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....
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.