Back
In the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu
Rajnesh Oswal and Rajesh Sekhri, JJ.
J&K Integrated Textile Park Limited – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 606/2021 (O&M)
Decided on : 14-10-2022
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest, 2002 – Sections 13(4) and 17 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – e-auction Notice – Quashment of – Petitioner has specifically prayed for issuance of a direction to Bank to de-seal factory and buildings and consequently release actual physical possession of factory and buildings – Petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, as such, present writ petition is not maintainable – Writ Petition dismissed. (Paras 13, 15, 17 and 18)
Result – Writ Petition dismissed.
Judgment :
Rajnesh Oswal, J. –
In the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
(ii) Prohibition restraining the respondent No. 3-Bank from proceeding further with the impugned e-auction notices dated 13.02.2021 and 06.03.2021, by virtue of which e-auction is scheduled on 25th and 30th March, 2021 in any manner. 2 WP(C) No. 606/2021
(iii) Mandamus commanding upon the respondents to delete and exclude the factory and buildings owned by the petitioner SPV from the e-auction notices dated 13.02.2021 and 06.03.2021.
(iv) Mandamus commanding upon the respondent No. 3-Bank to de-seal the factory and consequently release the actual physical possession of the factory and buildings of the petitioner SPV.
2. The case projected by the petitioner in this writ petition is that petitioner- J&K integrated Textile Park Limited, is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act on 15th March 2009 and the main object of the petitioner-company is to act as a Special Purpose Vehicle for implementing different schemes of the Central/State Governments. The petitioner pursuant to the Scheme for Integrated Textile Park (SITP) floated by the respondent No. 1, made a proposal for establishment of Textile Park Project and that was approved by the respondent No. 1, initially with project cost Rs. 47.11 crores. Subsequently, the project cost was changed to Rs. 44.11 crores. The Government of India grant for project was changed from Rs. 40.00 to Rs. 39.70 crores. As per Clause 2.4 of the Scheme (supra), the total project cost for the purpose of the scheme includes cost on account of ITP components as listed under Groups B, C & D provided the ownership of the factory and buildings vests with the Special Purpose Vehicle. The land, that formed component A of Scheme, was not included in the total project cost.
3. The petitioner was allotted 200 kanals of land at Industrial Estate Govindsar, Kathua. The lease deed dated 22.03.2012 came to be executed between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner for a period of 90 years. Thereafter, Memorandum of Agreement dated 29th May, 2013 also came to be executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 1.
4. The petitioner in turn claims to have executed Lease Agreement with the nine units holders, namely, J and K Textorium Pvt. Ltd, Green Textorium Pvt. Ltd., J and K Synthetic Pvt. Ltd., Silklon Synthetic Pvt. Ltd., Toplon Industries Pvt. Ltd, Natural Industries, Orbit Spinning Pvt. Ltd., Jyotsna Industries Pvt. Ltd. and Silklon Processors Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner has placed on record Lease Agreement dated 28th December, 2013 executed between the petitioner and Toplon Industries Pvt. Ltd. i.e. respondent No. 8. It needs to be noted that the lease agreements executed with other unit holders have not been placed on record. As per the lease agreement dated 28th December 2013, the lessee units cannot claim any ownership on the demised premises and the ownership of the demised premises shall always vest with the petitioner SPV.
5. The petitioner further claims to have executed the Tripartite Agreements with the respondent No. 2 and the unit holders as mentioned above. As per the terms and conditions of the Tripartite Agreement, the third party i.e. unit holders shall be under an obligation to pay the annual rent to the petitioner. It needs to be noted that the petitioner has placed on record the Tripartite Agreement executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 8 only.
6. It is further stated that the respondent No. 2 communicated to the Oriental Bank of Commerce, now Punjab National Bank vide communications dated 04.05.2016 and 22.03.2017 that in the event foreclosure of the unit or its transfer to 3rd party is necessitated, the Bank has to seek prior w
: Writ Petition should not be filed without availing equally efficacious alternative remedy.
The court held that the petitioners, as successful bidders in the e-auction, were entitled to have the sale deed executed in their favor as individuals, despite participating in the auction as a grou....
The Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing appeals without compliance with statutory requirements, and the tripartite agreement did not impose repayment obligations on....
The SARFAESI Act mandates exhausting statutory remedies before seeking extraordinary relief under Article 226; procedural compliance is essential, and the auction process cannot be set aside absent s....
Point of Law - It is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material for adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the obligation of a litigant to disclose all the facts of a case and le....
No one can be permitted to get benefit of his own wrong and cannot be permitted to get benefit of a void transaction.
The court held that when a statute provides specific remedies, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised, affirming the precedence of statutory procedures over equitable remedies.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
