IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
Bhagat Singh S/o Shri Jagat Singh Ji – Appellant
Versus
SRG Housing Finance Ltd. – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4482 of 2023
Decided on : 15-03-2024
Writ Petition - Loan Restructuring - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 - 13(2), 13(4), 14 - The court discussed the petitioners' request for loan restructuring, the notices issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 (the Act), and the rejection of their representation. The court highlighted the petitioners' failure to pay the loan amount, the availability of alternative remedies under the Act, and the inapplicability of writ jurisdiction against a private finance company.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners took a home loan facility from the respondent-SRG Finance Limited, deposited regular EMIs, and received notices for recovery of the due amount. They filed a writ petition seeking compliance with RBI directions and quashing of the notices and representation rejection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had not paid the loan amount, and the respondent had initiated proceedings under the Act. It noted the availability of alternative remedies under the Act and the inapplicability of writ jurisdiction against a private finance company.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioners' failure to pay the loan amount, the availability of alternative remedies under the Act, and the inapplicability of writ jurisdiction against a private finance company.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners' failure to pay the loan amount and the availability of alternative remedies under the Act rendered the writ petition not maintainable. It emphasized the inapplicability of writ jurisdiction against a private finance company.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and the stay petition.
ORDER :
NUPUR BHATI, J.
1. The present writ petition has been preferred with the following prayers:-
(b) your lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent HFC to grant the benefit of restructuring of the loan accounts as per the directions and guidelines issued by the RBI.
(c) your lordships may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent HFC to withdraw the notices dated 21.04.2022 (Annexure-4) and drop the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for recovery of illegal demand.
(d) your lordships may be pleased to quash the order dated 20.12.2022 (Annexure-8) rejecting the representation of the petitioners.
(e) your lordships may be pleased to grant any other and further relief/s as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of justice and fitness of things.
(f) the writ petition of the petitioners may kindly be allowed throughout with costs.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners took a home loan facility from the respondent-SRG Finance Limited, (for short, hereinafter referred to as “SRGFL”), against the assets creating security interest in favour of the respondent-SRGFL. The petitioners were granted home loan facility of Rs. 14 lacs in two installments. The petitioners deposited regular EMIs against the loan of Rs.14 lacs and a sum of Rs.10,76,067/-was deposited by the petitioners upto 30.11.2022 and a sum of Rs.5 lacs and odd was due in principal and interest thereon.
3. As per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement as well as Loan Sanction Letter, the loan amount was required to be deposited in 120 installments of EMIs of Rs.30867/-per month including the interest. The respondent in point No.6 of the sanction letter (Annex-1) excluded the moratorium period thereby, breaching the terms of Home Loan Agreement.
4. The petitioners received a notice dated 21.08.2020 from the respondent under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The petitioners approached the respondent authority and filed a complaint before him. The earlier notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was dropped and the account was regularized by withdrawing the NPA account remarks from petitioners’ loan account. Due to the pandemic COVID-19, there was a complete lockdown and all business sectors and industries were also very adversely affected due to COVID-19 pandemic.
5. The respondent charged an in-exorbitant rate of interest while calculating the due amount and the respondent-SRGFL also ignored the RBI guidelines. The petitioners received a notice dated 12.02.2021 for payment of a certain amount and initiated the proceedings for recovery under the provisions as mentioned therein. The petitioners after one year and two months again received a notice dated 21.04.2022 on 06.05.2022 with threats that the respondent would be initiated proceedings under the provisions of Section 14 of the Act, if the petitioners do not deposit the loan amount.
6. The petitioners submitted a detailed representation dated 20.05.2022 to the District Collector, Pali.
7. The petitioners being aggrieved by the notices issued by the respondent preferred writ petition being SBCWP No.15393/2022 before this Court and the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this court vide order dated 14.10.2022 (Annex-6) while directing the petitioners to file the representation before the respondent. The petitioners submitted a detailed representation dated 21.10.2022 (Annex-7) and the said representation was rejected vide order dated 20.12.2022 (Annex-8).
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present writ petition has been filed for seeking compliance of the statement dated 27.03.2020 and Circular dated 22.05.2020 issued by Reserve Bank of India and thus, the petitioners
Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thoms : (2003) 10 SCC 733
Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. : (2003) 2 SCC 107
Praga Tools Corpn. v. C.A. Imanual
Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir :(2022) 5 SCC 345
State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C.
United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon
Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks : (1998) 8 SCC 1
The availability of alternative remedies under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002 renders a writ petition not maintainable, especially aga....
(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 this judgment is that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters involving recovery of dues under....
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.