IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LISA GILL, RITU TAGORE, JJ.
Sudha Bansal – Petitioner
Versus
Union Bank of India & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 18984 of 2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 03-10-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition’s factual background and loan details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contentions of the parties regarding the loan settlement. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court’s analysis of legal remedies available. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. principle on exhaustion of statutory remedies. (Para 7) |
| 5. final decision and dismissal of writ petition with available remedies. (Para 8 , 9) |
JUDGMENT
Lisa Gill, J. (Oral)
Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside order dated 11.01.2023, Annexure P-11, passed by the District Magistrate, Sirsa, under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act') and notice dated 11.05.2023, Annexure P-15, issued pursuant thereto by respondent no.4. It is further prayed that respondents be directed to grant some time to the petitioner to arrange the amount due for settlement of loan accounts and to consider applications, Annexure P-12 and P-16, submitted by the petitioner and take a final decision thereon
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that loan facility was availed of by the petitioner and her husband in June 2017. Term loan to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- besides a house loan for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- was availed of by them. A third loan facility was also availed of by them. Residential house in the name of the petitioner and shop owned by her husband were mortgaged with the respondent-Bank. Unfortunately, petitioner's husband is stated to have suffered a Paralysis attack in the year 2020 and he ultimately passed away on 15.12.2022. It is submitted that two complaints under Section 13 8 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short NI Act) in respect to security cheques for a sum of Rs. 9,63,000/- and Rs. 14,00,000/-, both dated 02.12.2019, were filed by the respondent-Bank. Suit for recovery for a sum of Rs. 9,88,338/- along with requisite interest filed by the respondent-Bank was decreed on 15.09.2022. Two other civil suits for recovery were also filed by the respondent-Bank. Petitioner was proceeded ex parte in the said proceedings. It is submitted that respondent-Bank in an absolute illegal manner also initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. It is mentioned in the application under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act that accounts of the petitioner and her husband were declared Non Performing Asset (NPA) on 02.04.2022. Notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 07.09.2022. Claim of Rs. 23,52,122/- was raised. The District Magistrate, Sirsa, passed order dated 11.01.2023, Annexure P-23, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
3. It is contended that on coming to know of the said proceedings, petitioner represented before the Chief Manager, Union Bank of India on 28.05.2023, stating that she wished to close her loan account. Reminders were also sent by her. Meanwhile, notice dated 11.05.2023, was issued by the Tehsildar, Sirsa. The petitioner, yet again submitted representation dated 11.07.2023, Annexure P-16, seeking settlement of all her three loan accounts expressing her intention to deposit a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/- as One Time Settlement (OTS) for all the three loan accounts. Mortgaged property, it is submitted is the sole residential house of the petitioner, who is a widow and in case, her residential house is taken away, she would be rendered destitute as her son is also not looking after her and has in-fact abandoned her. Actual market price of the residential house of the petitioner is stated to be much more than the outstanding amount and that there is no justification for selling the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case this writ petition should be allowed.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank on advance notice submits that this writ petition is not entertainable as the petitioner has an efficacious remedy for redressal of her grievance. Furthermore, total outstanding qua all the three loan accounts is approxi
Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad
Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
M/s South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen Mathew Philip
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India
Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon
Judicial restraint is required under Article 226 when alternative statutory remedies are available, especially in financial recovery matters.
SARFAESI Act provides a comprehensive mechanism for borrowers to address grievances, and High Courts should exercise restraint in intervention unless extraordinary circumstances arise.
The High Court should not interfere with SARFAESI Act proceedings when effective statutory remedies are available, emphasizing the importance of adhering to legislative intent.
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to intervene in proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, reinforcing the necessity for adherence to the statutory remedy framework prior to court interference.
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.