The High Court cannot exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to resolve disputed questions of fact or to bypass statutory recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and IBC; furthermore, the Court cannot issue a Mandamus to compel a bank into a One Time Settlement.

LISA GILL, J.

Prayer in this writ petition reads as under:

“It is therefore prayed that this Hon‟ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus, declaring a) the action of 4th respondent Bank, in arbitrarily exercising its powers, illegally classifying the petitioner‟s accounts as NPA, wrongfully dispossessing the petitioner of his properties and depriving him of his lawful assets, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the 4th respondent Bank being an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India; b) consequently direct the 4th respondent Bank to restore and return all the petitioner‟s properties, including residential and commercial assets, with all necessary clearances, thereby restoring the petitioner‟s lawful ownership and possession; c) award appropriate compensation to the petitioner for the grave financial loss and hardship caused due to the illegal and arbitrary actions of the 4th respondent Bank; d) direct initiation of appropriate penal and disciplinary action against the officials of the 2nd and 4th respondent Bank responsible for the wrongful acts, including wrongful certification, arbitrary classification of the accounts as NPA and illegal dispossession of the petitioner‟s properties and pass such other order or orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Brief facts as pleaded before us are that petitioner established both Nithin and Ramanasree Group of Companies. Both the said companies maintained a banking relationship with Bank of India since 1993 and availed various credit facilities, majority of which were serviced as per stipulated timelines. With intention of expansion of business operations, petitioner‟s companies approached respondent No.4 and applied for term and working capital credit facilities between 2013 and 2014 which were sanctioned in both secured and unsecured forms. In respect to a new manufacturing unit in Faridabad, respondent No.4 facilitated selection of machinery suppliers by sending its own engineers to inspect supplier‟s factory. On the basis of recommendation of respondent No.4, agreements for supply of machinery was/were entered into with M/s Flour Tech Engineers Private Limited. However, this supplier failed to deliver requested machinery within the stipulated time frame and further delivered used, defective and second-hand machinery thereafter. At the same time, due to the effect of bifurcation between 2015-2016 business of petitioner‟s companies was affected. Respondent No.4 agreed to re-schedulement of payment and directed the petitioner to clear outstanding arrears amounting to Rs.1.30 Crores. However, despite compliance by petitioner / the companies, respondent No.4 acted unfairly and declared the account (s) Non Performing Asset (NPA).

Proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the Act”) were initiated. Reference was made by learned counsel for petitioner to notice under Section 13(2) of the Act to one M/s.Nithin Proteins Pvt. Ltd. Allegations have been raised regarding incorrect and wrongful declaration of accounts of petitioner‟s companies as NPA. It is further stated that title deeds deposited by guarantors including petitioner as security for loans in question were incorrectly registered in the name of Bank of Baroda instead of Bank of India. Respondent No.4 had to create another set of documents and re-register them in its own name and that mishandling of title deeds demonstrated gross n