Court No. 6 CO 1333 of 2025 (265719)

25.04.2025 M/s. Shomuk Engineering and Consultancy Services &

(AD 222) Anr.

Vs.

(S. Banerjee) Aditya Birla Finance Ltd. & Anr.

Mr. Anruddha Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate Ms. Urmila Chakraborty Mr. Pankaj Agarwal Ms. Champa Pal …for the petitioners Mr. Sagar Bandopadhyay, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anirban Ray, Sr. Advocate Ms. Shreya Saria Mr. Amit Kumar Nag Ms. Ranjabati Ray Mr. Parikshit Lakhotia …for the opposite parties This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated March 25, 2025 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal – I, Kolkata in SA 91 of 2025. By the order impugned the learned tribunal after hearing the advocates for the respective parties directed the parties to exchange affidavits and April 25, 2025 was fixed for hearing of the SARFAESI application and the interlocutory application.

Challenging an action taken under Section 13(4)

of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and an order dated March 5, 2025 passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the notice of intimation to take possession dated March 21, 2025, the petitioners approached the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal by filing SA 91 of 2025.

Challenging the order refusing to pass an interim order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Mr. Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that pursuant to a settlement agreement entered into between the parties, the petitioner was inducted as a licensee in respect of two flats at Keyatala Road and the secured creditor is trying to take possession of the said residential flats by obtaining an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act. He further submits that the opposite parties herein have filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and obtained orders directing freezing of the bank accounts of the petitioners. Mr. Chatterjee further submits that since the opposite parties herein have taken recourses available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for recovery of the amounts due, the said authorities ought not to have taken steps for taking possession of the property of the petitioners by invoking Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

Mr. Chatterjee further submits that an amount of Rs. 12.50 crores out of the agreed amount of Rs. 18 crores has already been paid by the petitioners and he has been instructed to submit before this Court that the petitioners are willing to deposit a further sum of Rs. 1.50 crores in course of this day as a condition for stay of operation of the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

Mr. Bandopadhyay and Mr. Ray, learned Senior Advocates appear for the opposite party/Finance company. Mr. Bandyopadhyay raises a preliminary objection as to the entertainability of this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of availability of statutory appellate remedy provided under the 2002 Act. In support of such contention he places reliance upon a recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society –Vs.- UCO Bank & Ors. reported at (2024) 6 SCC 579. He further refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited –Vs.- Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited, reported in (2018) 14 SCC 783 in support of his contention that merely because the remedy available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been invoked, the same cannot be a ground to debar the opposite parties herein from taking recourses available under the SARFAESI Act. On instruction Mr.

Bandopahdyay submits that the opposite parties are not agreeable to accept such amount at this stage.

Though the learned senior advocates appearing for the respective parties have addressed the Court on the merits of the issues involved before the learned Tribunal, but before entering into such issues, this Court shall first consider w