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.

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Lisa Gill, J.

Prayer in this writ petition is for quashing notice dated 01.02.2019 (Annexure P2) under Section 13 (2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the 'SARFAESI Act'), possession notice dated 09.07.2019 (Annexure P4) and sale notice dated 16.09.2019 (Annexure P5).

2. It is submitted that petitioner had availed four loan facilities, i.e. three term loans and one cash credit limit as detailed in Para 2 (iii) of the writ petition. Due to financial indiscipline, all accounts of the petitioner were declared Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 17.12.2018. Proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated against the petitioner with issuance of notice dated 01.02.2019 under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act (Annexure P2) seeking deposit of Rs.4,44,28,182.94/- as on 01.02.2019. Notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act was issued on 09.07.2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that action undertaken by the respondents under the SARFAESI Act is absolutely illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as objections dated 22.04.2019 filed by the petitioner pursuant to notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act were not decided before issuance of notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. It is thus prayed that this writ petition be allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents while raising objection about entertain-ability of this writ petition in view of settled position of law, submits that huge amount of Rs.7,01,66,491.20 as on 03.08.2023 is outstanding towards the petitioner. Moreover, it is submitted that purported objections dated 22.04.2019 were never received by the respondent-Bank. Petitioner should be put to strict proof of the same. Dismissal of writ petition is sought.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file with their able assistance.

5. Availing of the loan facility/cash credit limit by the petitioner is a matter of record. Liability of the petitioner is not denied. Ground taken before us is that procedure adopted by the respondent-Bank is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as objections/representation submitted by the petitioner on 22.04.2019 was not decided prior to issuance of notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act. No other argument has been raised before us.

6. Notice of motion was issued in this writ petition on 20.11.2019 by the coordinate Bench while noticing contentions on behalf of the petitioner as well as reliance placed by the petitioner on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. etc. v. Union of India and others etc., 2004(2) RCR Civil 665. Further proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were stayed. The matter remained pending before this Court since then.

7. It is to be noted, at this stage, that petitioner has an efficacious remedy to challenge the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has held that the High Court should desist from interference in such matters under the SARFAESI Act in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Mardia Chemicals Ltd.'s case (supra) itself, it has been held as under:-

"50. It has also been submitted that an appeal is entertain-able before the Debt Recovery Tribunal only after such measures as provided in sub-section (4) of Section 13 are taken and Section 34 bars to entertain any proceeding in respect of a matter whic