High Courts should ordinarily not interfere in proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, under Article 226. Borrowers should approach the appropriate statutory forum, such as the Debts Recovery Tribunal, for relief.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 20th day of February, 2024 The petitioner, who has availed financial assistances from the 1st respondent-Bank, has approached this Court seeking to direct the respondent-Bank to regularise the loan account of the petitioner after allowing him to pay the overdue amounts in instalments.

2. The petitioner states that he has availed a loan of ₹4.8 Crores from the 1st respondent-Bank and when the maintenance of the loan account defaulted, the Bank is proceeding against the petitioner's secured asset. The respondents have invoked provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and has issued Ext.P1 notice under Section 13(4). In the circumstances, the petitioner seeks to command the respondent-Bank not to proceed further under the Act, 2002 and to direct the respondents to defer all further proceedings against the secured assets pending disposal of the writ petition.

3. Standing Counsel entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that the petitioner was given a Cash Credit facility, ECLGS Loan and Term Loan amounting to about ₹4.8 Crores. The petitioner defaulted in maintaining the loan accounts and the total outstanding amount payable in these accounts as on 05.02.2024 is ₹3,34,79,904.70. Apart from the afore advances, the petitioner has also availed two Housing Loan advances where amounts are outstanding.

4. Standing Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has an alternate remedy as the proceedings are under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

6. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P1. Ext.P1 is possession notice for immovable property. It has been issued invoking Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in the matter of proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the High Courts under Article 226 shall not interfere in the matter ordinarily. The petitioners should be left to approach the appropriate statutory forum. The petitioner states that the petitioner is willing to go to the Debts Recovery Tribunal provided a breathing time is granted.

In the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to defer coercive proceedings, if any, against the petitioner for a period of two weeks, in order to enable the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal and obtain orders, on condition that the petitioner remits an amount of ₹20 lakhs within a period of two weeks. If the petitioner fails to remit ₹20 lakhs within a period of two weeks, the respondents will be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner. If the petitioner approaches the Debts Recovery Tribunal, further proceedings will be subject to the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal.