IMPORTANT POINT
Alternative remedy is not an absolute bar on maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, where DRT has exceeded in exercising its jurisdiction.

ORDER

Matter comes up on an application submitted by the respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of exparte stay order dated 02.06.2023.

2. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the arguments have been heard finally and this writ petition is decided by this order.

3. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 23.05.2023 by which the misc. application No. 81/2018 submitted by the respondents has been allowed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short, ‘the DRT’) and the earlier orders dated 28.01.2016 and 30.03.2016 have been modified by granting the respondents a period of twelve months to complete the repayment of the remaining amount as per the OTS/settlement.

4. Counsel for the petitioner-Bank submits that when the default was committed by the respondents, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the SARFAESI Act, 2002’) were initiated against the respondents borrowers. In the meantime, a One Time Settlement (OTS) was arrived at between the parties and in terms of the aforesaid OTS/settlement, the Securitisation Application, pending before the DRT, was disposed of vide order dated 28.01.2016 along with certain terms and conditions. Counsel submits that as per the terms and conditions of the OTS/settlement, the respondents were supposed to pay the balance amount on or before 31.03.2018 but inspite of the above, when the respondents sought extension of the said period by way of making certain communications/correspondences with the petitioner-Bank, their request was entertained and further time was granted to them to make repayment on or before 31.06.2018. Counsel submits that on the basis of the aforesaid, the amended consent recovery certificate was issued by the DRT vide order dated 30.03.2016. Counsel further submits that when the aforesaid order was not complied with by the respondents, the OTS/settlement stood frustrated. Therefore, the petitioner-Bank decided to proceed against the respondents for recovery of the balance amount. At this stage, the respondents submitted a misc. application before the DRT seeking modification of the earlier orders dated 28.01.2016 and 30.03.2016. Counsel submits that without having any jurisdiction, the DRT had entertained the misc. application submitted by the respondents, contrary to the provisions contained under Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act. Counsel submits that once the Securitisation Application was disposed of by the DRT, there could be no extension or rescheduling of the repayment terms and no further time ought to have been granted by the DRT to the respondents. Hence under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition, which is maintainable in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax Vs. Commercial Steel Limited, reported in 2022 (16) SCC 447. Counsel submits that by allowing the misc. application, submitted by the respondents and granting further time to the respondents to deposit the balance amount, the DRT has exceeded its jurisdiction. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is warranted.

5. Lastly, he argued that much water has flown after passing of the order by the DRT and the interim order passed by this Court and subsequently, the proceedings had been initiated against the respondents by the petitioner under the IBC before the NCLT wherein final orders have been also passed and the matter is now reserved for passing appropriate orders.

6. Per contra, counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the OTS/Settlement was not given effect by the petitioner and the same was frustrated by the petitioner-Bank. Counsel further submitted that the respondents were having 11