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
| 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.
Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad
Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
M/s South Indian bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew Philip
Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India
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 lacks jurisdiction to intervene in proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, reinforcing the necessity for adherence to the statutory remedy framework prior to court interference.
Judicial restraint is required under Article 226 when alternative statutory remedies are available, especially in financial recovery matters.
The SARFAESI Act, 2002 provides a complete code with alternative efficacious remedies, and the extraordinary writ jurisdiction should only be invoked in exceptional circumstances.
The SARFAESI Act provides specific remedies for grievances, and borrowers do not have a vested right to One Time Settlement benefits, which are subject to the bank's discretion.
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.