The High Court can intervene in cases of fraudulent acts despite the jurisdictional bar under Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

ORDER

Order No. 20.08.2024

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

2. Heard Mr. Sourya Sundar Das, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner.

3. In pursuance of the order dated 08.08.2024, Mr. Sourya Sundar Das, learned Senior Advocate placed the decisions in case of Bhopal Thapa -Vrs.- Girijesh Tiwari and others reported in AIR 2015 Gauhati 10 wherein it is held that in case of existence of any fraudulent act, the bar under section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereafter ‘1993 Act’) would not be applicable and the High Court can entertain the writ petition. It is further held that there is no question of preferring an appeal by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree passed by the DRT because the plaintiff was not made a party by the proceeding. Learned Sr. counsel further placed reliance in the matter of M/s. Hindustan Ferro & Industries Ltd., and another -Vrs.- Debt Recovery Tribunal Allahabad and another reported in AIR 2001 Allahabad 155 wherein it is held that the provisions of section 18 of the 1993 Act bars the jurisdiction of the other courts or authority in relation to the matter specified in section 17 of the said Act except the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the High Court exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the legal position is that the High Court has power to interfere, if the circumstances so require is beyond the pale of challenge in appropriate matters. The High Court shall not hesitate to intervene if the justice demands even though there is an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under section 20 of the Act.

4. Learned Senior counsel submits that Opposite Party No.1-Trishna Real Estate Private Limited has not only misled and misrepresented to the Petitioner but also misled the Petitioner’s Bank while creating charge in its favour. The Petitioner has cleared the dues of State Bank of India in the meantime and there is no outstanding dues perfecting the title of the Petitioner to be absolute owner of the suit property.

5. Perused the grounds taken in the writ petition. We are of the view that the Petitioner has made out a prima facie case in his favour.

6. Issue notice on the question of admission indicating therein that the matter shall be disposed of at the stage of admission.

Requisites for issuance of notice on the Opposite Parties by Speed Post with proof of delivery shall be filed within a week.

7. List this matter in the week commencing from 23.09.2024.