$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3271/2024 & CM APPL.13500/2024 MS PERFECT INFRAENGINEERS LIMITED THROUGH ITS PROMOTER AND GUARANTOR & ANR. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara, Advocate.

versus TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT BOARD & ORS..... Respondents Through: Ms. Shiva Laxmi, CGSC with Ms.

Archana Surve, GP for R-13 &

14/UOI.

Reserved on: 18th March, 2024 % Date of Decision: 16^th April, 2024 CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

1. Present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugns the vires of the following provisions: -

(1)Section 14 and Section 34 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).

(2)Section 19 and Section 34 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (RDB Act).

(3)Section 7 and Section 231 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

2. The Petitioner Company further prays for quashing of the proceedings initiated by Technology Development Board (TDB) i.e., Respondent No.1 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 3271/2024 Page 1 of 12 under Section 7 of the IBC before the National Company Law Tribunal i.e., NCLT-I, Mumbai, in Company Petition No. 322 (MB) of 2023.

3. The Petitioner has filed CM APPL. No. 13500/2024 for interim relief and is seeking stay of the proceedings pending before the NCLT-I, Mumbai and the action initiated by Respondent ICICI Bank under Sections 13(2), 13(4) and 14 of the SARFAESI Act, during the pendency of this petition.

Brief Facts

4. It is stated that the Petitioner Company, which is a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise (MSME), availed credit facilities from the Respondent, ICICI Bank.

4.1 In addition, a loan of Rs. 7.5 Crores was sanctioned in favour of Petitioner Company by the TDB, out of which an amount of Rs. 4.5 Crores was released to it. It is stated that due to the Petitioner Company’s strained relations with the Respondent ICICI Bank with respect to charging of excess interest, TDB unreasonably did not release the remaining amount of Rs. 3 Crores.

5. It is stated that the Respondent ICICI Bank issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act and took over the possession of the mortgaged property under Section 14 of the said Act.

6. It is stated that Petitioner Company has filed a Commercial Suit No. COMS (L) No. 27512/2023 in Mumbai Civil Court, claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 23.05 Crores against the Respondents ICICI Bank and TDB. Further, the Petitioner Company has filed a WP(L) No. 27528/2022 before the High Court of Bombay under Section 36AA of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 for removal of the officers of the Respondent ICICI Bank for their wrongful conduct.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 3271/2024 Page 2 of 12

6.1 The Petitioner Company conceded that it has instituted multifarious proceedings against both the Respondents, TDB and ICICI Bank, before the Courts at Mumbai and the details of the 20 such proceedings are enlisted in ‘Annexure P-4’ of present writ petition. In fact, one of the writ petitions i.e., WP(L) 35792/2022 already stands dismissed by the High Court of Bombay and SLP (C) 2112/2024, assailing the order of the High Court, as well has been dismissed.

7. It is stated that presently the Petitioner Company is aggrieved by Respondent TDB’s action of filing a Company Petition No. 322 of 2023 under Section 7 of the IBC, for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the Petitioner Company, in NCLT-I, Mumbai.

8. The Petitioner Company seeks the quashing of the aforesaid proceedings initiated by both the Respondents, ICICI Bank and TDB, in this writ petition; as it contended that all the issues amongst the Petitioner, TDB and ICICI Bank ought to be decided in the pending civil suit at Mumbai; and no other forum except Civil Court is competent to decide the