Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 130
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH, JJ
Shri Mohan Lal Patel – Appellant
Versus
India Bull Housing Finance Pvt Ltd. – Respondent
WP 16933/2024
Manoj Saxena,
Writ petitions under SARFAESI Act are not maintainable when alternative remedies are available, emphasizing adherence to established legal principles.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Petition seeking to quash an order for possession of property due to loan default - Petitioners had availed a loan which was declared NPA, leading to proceedings under SARFAESI Act - Court emphasized the necessity of exhausting alternative remedies before approaching High Court. (Paras 2, 3, 9)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - High Courts should not entertain matters under SARFAESI Act when alternative remedies are available - Judicial impropriety noted in granting interim relief without following established legal principles. (Paras 5, 7)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners borrowed Rs. 18,68,817/- against property, declared NPA, leading to possession proceedings initiated by the bank. Petitioners sought to quash the order and requested settlement of the loan.
Findings of Court:
The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable due to the existence of an alternative remedy pending before the DRT.
Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court could entertain a writ petition under SARFAESI when an alternative remedy was available.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioners had an alternative remedy pending before the DRT, emphasizing the importance of adhering to established legal principles.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Per: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J Heard on the question of admission & interim relief.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:-
- a. It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and may kindly quash the impugned order dated 20.03.2019 (Annexure P/1). b. That, respondents may kindly be directed to not to vacant the premises of the petitioners till the interlocutory application or stay application of petitioners is decided by the DRT.
- c. That, respondent may kindly be directed to consider the request of the petitioner to settle the amount and reschedule the loan amount.
- d. That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem fit may be granted to the petitioner.
02. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/borrowers had availed a loan of Rs. 18,68,817/- from the respondent bank in the year 2018 against equitable mortgage of property bearing Plot/House No. 18, Ward No. 25, Ram Rahim Nagar colony, Near BNP Road, Dewas. The loan account of the petitioners was declared Non Performing Assets (NPA) by the respondent bank and notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) was issued. Subsequently, an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act was filed by the respondent bank before the Addl. District Magistrate, Shajapur, whereby the impugned order dated 20.03.2019 was passed for taking possession of the property. Petitioners approached the respondent bank for settlement of their loan, but to no avail. Hence, this petition.
03. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for redressal of the same grievance, petitioners have availed the alternative remedy and filed Securitization Application No.1468/2024 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur but due to unavailability of the presiding officer, the case is pending consideration.
04. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has already availed the alternative remedy by filing the Securatization Application No. 1468/2024 before the DRT, Jabalpur and the same is pending for adjudication.
05. The Apex Court in the case of ICICI Bank Limited and others v/s Umakanta Mohapatra & Others reported in (2019) 13 SCC 497 has held as follows:-
- "2. Despite several judgments of this Court, including a judgment by Hon'ble Navin Sinha, J., as recently as on 30-1-2018, in State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 41], the High Courts continue to entertain matters which arise under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), and keep granting interim orders in favour of persons who are nonperforming assets (NPAs).
3. The writ petition itself was not maintainable, as a result of which, in view of our recent judgment, which has followed earlier judgments of this Court, held as follows:
- ''17. We cannot help but disapprove the approach of them High Court for reasons already noticed i n Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. [Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P)Ltd.,(1997) 6 SCC 450], observing:
32. When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position.
Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this tendency stops.''
4.
