SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2747

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, JJ.
Union Bank of India – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CM-3998-CWP AND 4000-CWP of 2023 IN/AND CWP NO. 15
Decided On : 26-04-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Priyanka Sud, Advocate; For the Appellant (in CM-3998-CWP and 4000-CWP-2023 in CWP-15918-2021).
Mr. Mahesh Dheer, Advocate; For the Petitioner (in CWP-15918-2021).
Mr. V.K. Sachdeva, Advocate; For the Petitioners (in CWP-2536-2022).
For the Respondent: Mr. Aman Bahri, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate, for Respondent No.4 (in CWP-2536-2022).
Mr. Jasbir Singh Ahlawat, Advocate; For the Appellant (in CM-17999-CWP-2021 in CWP-15918-2021).
Mr. Tajinder Joshi, Advocate, for Respondent No.11 (in CWP-2536-20

Headnote:(A) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 13 and 14 - Challenge to orders passed under the Act relating to auction of secured assets - Previous orders by District Magistrate reviewed without authority, leading to quashing of subsequent orders dated 18.05.2021 and 28.05.2021 - Jurisdictional limits of the District Magistrate emphasized, underscoring non-reviewability of orders under the Act. (Paras 3-9)

(B) Judicial Review - Alternative remedy under the Act must be exhausted before recourse to writ jurisdiction can be considered, as reaffirmed by precedent. (Para 5)

Facts of the case:
Writ petitions were filed by a bank and a loanee concerning the interpretation of auction proceedings and maintenance of interim orders by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and District Magistrate. Issues included authority of the District Magistrate to review its orders.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the orders of the District Magistrate were beyond authority and thus quashed the subsequent orders, effectively reinstating the original order.

Issues: The primary issues were the authority of the District Magistrate to review its orders and the maintainability of the writ petitions after alternative remedies were pursued.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the District Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to review earlier orders and underscored the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention.

Result: CWP No. 15918 of 2021 allowed; CWP No. 2536 of 2022 dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to drt orders and prior petitions (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of property auction and dues (Para 3)
3. writ jurisdiction and alternative remedies (Para 4 , 5)
4. powers of the tribunal and district magistrate (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
5. final orders and outcomes of the writ petitions (Para 10)

JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral) - The present judgment shall dispose of two writ petitions i.e. CWP-15918-2021 and CWP-2536-2022. Challenge in CWP-2536-2022 filed by loanee is to the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh in SA-49-2021 (Annexure P-42) wherein, interim relief was not granted regarding the auction proceedings on the ground that no ex parte orders could be passed. It is only against the interim order of the DRT, the writ petition has been filed. The auction was apparently fixed for 18.01.2021, which was also subject matter of challenge and stated to be in complete violation of the earlier interim order dated 17.02.2021 passed by this Court in CWP-29435-2019 (Annexure P-40) wherein, the petitioner has been relegated to his alternative remedy before the Tribunal with a direction that the interim order will continue for one week. We have also been informed that SA No. 49 of 2021 has now been dismissed in default on 17.04.2023.

2. The bank, on the other hand in CWP-15918-2021, has challenged the orders passed by the District Magistrate, Panchkula wherein, the earlier order dated 24.12.2020 (Annexure P-22) passed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short 'the Act') giving possession to the secured creditor was sought to be recalled by passing interim orders dated 18.05.2021 and 28.05.2021 (Annexures P-23 and P-26 in CWP No. 15918 of 2021). The District Magistrate has also reviewed his earlier order dated 24.12.2020 by final order dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure P-54A). It has also been brought to our notice that earlier the loanee company i.e. Respondent No.5-M/s. Eee & Cee Pressing Pvt. Ltd. (in CWP No. 2536 of 2022) filed CWP No. 29435 of 2019, M/s. Eee & Cee Pressing Pvt. Ltd. v. Corporation Bank and others and CWP No. 5056 of 2021, M/s. Eee & Cee Pressing Pvt. Ltd. and others v. Union Bank of India and others wherein, they were relegated to avail their alternative remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

3. It is not disputed that the property has also been put to auction in two lots and sale certificates dated 12.03.2021 (Annexures P-11 and P-12 in CWP No.15918 of 2021) for Rs.7.42 crores and 7.04 crores have been issued. The outstandings as such due to the loanee-company were Rs.8,89,57,701/- as per the Section 13 (2) notice dated 04.07.2019 (Annexure P-11 in CWP No. 2536 of 2022), which is also subject matter of challenge in the said writ petition alongwith notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act issued on 30.09.2019 (Annexure P-16). Apparently, the matter was pending with the Tribunal and matter had been withdrawn before two earlier Division Benches to approach the Tribunal. The Tribunal has been clothed with sufficient power under Section 17 (3) of the Act wherein if any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13, taken by the secured creditor are not in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, it can direct restoration of possession of the secured assets. The petitioners and their representatives having approached this Court twice over and have withdrawn the writ petitions and resultantly filed SA No. 49 of 2021. Repeated writ petitions by the same set of parties or by Directors of the same company are not liable to be entertained. Challenge in CWP No. 29435 of 2019 filed by the suspended Director of Eee & Cee Pressing Pvt. Ltd. and another is to proceedings under Section 13 (2) and 13(4) of the Act and eventually, the writ petition was dismissed on 17.02.2021 by passing the following order:-

    "1. This writ petition has been fi

                              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                              1
                              2
                              3
                              4
                              5
                              6
                              7
                              8
                              9
                              10
                              11
                              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                              supreme today icon
                              logo-black

                              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

                              qr

                              Scan Me!

                              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                              whatsapp-icon Back to top