Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Mahavir Rice And Dal Mills And Others vs Hdfc Bank Limited on 18 March, 2024
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
CWP No. 5347 of 2024 (O&M) -1- 2024: PHHC:038824-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.5347 of 2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 18.03.2024 MESSES MAHAVIR RICE AND DAL MILLS AND OTHERS seseee Petitioner(s) Versus HDFC BANK LIMITED eesees Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI Present: Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate for the petitioners. 36 2k 3 2 2 LISA GILL, J(Oral).
1. Prayer in this writ petition is for quashing order dated 24.01.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh (DRT, Chandigarh) vide which written statement filed by petitioner no.4 has not been taken into cognizance and application filed by petitioners no.1 to 3 for setting aside ex-parte order dated 25.09.2023 was dismissed, with a further prayer for stay of proceedings before learned DRT, Chandigarh, during pendency of this writ petition.
2. Admittedly, petitioners have an efficacious remedy of appeal in terms of Section 18 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 226 of Constitution of India is not called for at this stage. Gainful reference in this respect can be made to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. 3024.03.29 10-48 | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No. 5347 of 2024 (O&M) -2- Sreenivasulu and others, 2023(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 34, wherein it has been held as under :-
"34. In the instant case, although the respondent borrowers initially approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, but the order of the Tribunal indeed was appealable under Section 18 of the Act subject to the compliance of condition of predeposit and without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal, the respondent borrowers approached the High Court by filing the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution. We deprecate such practice of entertaining the writ application by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy available under the law. This circuitous route appears to have been adopted to avoid the condition of pre-deposit contemplated under 2nd proviso to Section 18 of the Act 2002."
3. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioners seeks to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal available to them while raising all pleas as may be available to petitioners.
4. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforementioned.
5. There is no expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy.
( LISA GILL ) JUDGE (AMARJOT BHATTI) March 18, 2024. JUDGE sunil Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No. SANJAY KHAN 2024.03.23 10:48 | attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document