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) 3340

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
LISA GILL, RITU TAGORE, JJ.
Ashish Mathur & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-22808 of 2023
Decided On : 10-10-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Viren Jain, Advocate and Ms. Komaljit Kaur, Advocate; For the Petitioners
Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the respondent-Bank.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Jain, Additional A.G. Punjab.

SARFAESI Act provides a comprehensive mechanism for borrowers to address grievances, and High Courts should exercise restraint in intervention unless extraordinary circumstances arise.

Headnote:(A) Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 13(2), 13(4), and 14 - Petitioners challenge notices issued by the Bank claiming illegal proceedings for declaring their loan as Non-Performing Asset due to pandemic-related financial difficulty - Court emphasizes that SARFAESI Act provides a complete remedy for grievances, and interference by the High Court should be minimal - The petitioners were unable to show any extraordinary circumstance for intervention. (Paras 1, 9, 10, 11)

(B) Jurisdiction of High Court - High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is restrained when statutory remedies exist—petitioners must exhaust these remedies before seeking judicial intervention. (Paras 9, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners availed loans in 2014, secured by mortgage, but faced financial hardship due to COVID-19, leading to delays in EMI payments and subsequent notices from the Bank. Proceedings initiated were claimed to be illegal and unauthorized.

Findings of Court:
The Court found no ground for interference in the petition and emphasized the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the High Court.

Issues: The main issues were the legality of the bank's processes under the SARFAESI Act and whether the petitioners had valid grounds to seek intervention from the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there were adequate statutory remedies available to the petitioners under the SARFAESI Act, and any interference by the High Court should be reserved for exceptional circumstances.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to notices under sarfaesi act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. argument regarding the procedures followed by the bank. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. judicial restraint and the importance of exhausting statutory remedies. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. emphasis on the settled law of non-interference. (Para 11 , 12)
5. final dismissal with liberty to seek remedies. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

Lisa Gill, J. (Oral)

Prayer in this writ petition is for quashing notice dated 17.08.2020 (Annexure P-9) under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act), 2002, notice(s) dated 12.03.2021 (Annexure P- 10) and 14.07.2022 (Annexure P-14) under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act and notice dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure P-15) issued by Tehsildar, Ludhiana pursuant to order dated 23.08.2023, passed by District Magistrate, Ludhiana under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act.

2. It is submitted that petitioners had availed of three loan facilities in the year 2014 for a sum of Rs.97,83,000/-. Residential house as described in the writ petition was mortgaged with the respondent- Bank. It is further submitted that due to outbreak of the pandemic Covid-19, petitioners suffered a financial crunch and there was delay in deposit of EMIs. Petitioners also had to face fraud being committed against them by one of their purchasers in respect of which FIR No.269 under Section 420 IPC was registered at Police Station Division No.3, Ludhiana. Petitioners represented before the respondent-Bank for rescheduling their account. Their request for restructuring was kept pending and behind their back, their account was illegally declared Non- Performing Asset (NPA) on 29.02.2020. Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was issued on 17.08.2020 (Annexure P-9) and notice(s) under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act was/were issued on 12.03.2021(Annexure P-10) and 14.07.2022 (Annexure P-14).

3. Petitioners filed CWP-5947 of 2022, seeking quashing of the said notice(s) as well as notice dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure P-15) issued by Tehsildar, Ludhiana on the ground that notices in question had not been served upon the petitioners and order dated 12.01.2022 under Section 14 had been obtained by the respondent-Bank in an illegal manner. Notice of motion was issued in CWP-5947-2022 by co-ordinate Bench on 24.03.2022 and said writ petition was ultimately disposed of on 15.05.2023 as notice dated 09.03.2021 issued under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act was withdrawn and it was stated on behalf of respondent-Bank that fresh proceedings under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act have been initiated.

4. Thereafter, notice dated 14.07.2022 (Annexure P-14) under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act was issued and notice dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure P-15) has been issued by Tehsildar, Ludhiana for handing over possession in terms of order dated 23.08.2023 passed by District Magistrate, Ludhiana.

5. It is vehemently argued that the procedure yet again adopted by the respondent-Bank is absolutely illegal and in violation of provisions of law and principles of natural justice. The petitioners always being ready and willing to deposit the overdue amount had approached the respondent-Bank but respondent-Bank never reverted back. Tenure of the loan was not increased as had been requested by the petitioners.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank (on advance notice) while challenging entertain-ability of this writ petition itself, submits that total outstanding qua both accounts of the petitioners as on date is Rs.1,16,52,123/- and overdue amount is Rs.52,14,941/-. Petitioners, it is submitted are only interested in delaying the matters. Dismissal of writ petition is sought.

7. The amount as stated before us is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the file with their able assistance.

9. Petitioners seek to challenge proceedings under SARFAESI Act initiated against them by the respondent-Bank.

          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