Allahabad High Court
Mukesh Kumar vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance ... on 21 February, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
In The High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad
Sitting At Lucknow
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:11283-DB
Court No. - 1
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 82 of 2025
Appellant :- Mukesh Kumar
Respondent :- U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance New Delhi And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Prayas Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Prashant Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Vakalatnama filed by Ms. Harsha Yadav on behalf of the Union of India is taken on record.
2. Heard Sri Prayas Srivastava learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Harsha Yadav learned counsel for the Union of India and Sri Prashant Kumar Srivastava learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party nos. 4 and 5.
3. For the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 is hereby dispensed with.
4. This instant intra court appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 17.1.2025 passed by the writ court in Writ- C No. 11392 of 2024 whereby the writ petition directed against a communication by the RBI Ombudsman dated 2.9.2024 has been rejected. The writ court while rejecting the writ petition has observed that the Bank being a defined entity under the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002(hereinafter referred to as 'the SARFAESI Act') would not fall within the meaning of any other person as postulated in Section 30A of the SARFAESI Act, therefore, the complaint against the Bank would not lie for the purpose of adjudication in the light of RBI schemes unless the same are applicable to a creditor.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that based on a scheme floated by the Reserve Bank of India on 6.8.2020, he had made an application to the adjudicating authority for consideration of his grievance within the scope of Section 30A of the SARFAESI Act. This application was forwarded by the appellant to the adjudicating authority on 10.7.2024 claiming the benefit of circular dated 6.8.2020.
6. On a pointed query made to the appellant as to under which provision of the scheme, the grievance raised by the appellant in the aforementioned complaint was maintainable for the purposes of adjudication, he has been unable to point out any specific provision.
7. On a close scrutiny of the scheme issued by the Reserve Bank of India on 6.8.2020, it is gathered that the resolution of grievances regarding stress in personal loans was provided under Chapter-A . Paragraph 6 of which the relevant part provides as under :-
"Only those borrower accounts shall be eligible for resolution under this framework which were classified as standard, but not in default for more than 30 days with the lending institution as on March 1, 2020".
8. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is gathered that the loan obtained by the appellant from the Bank was declared as NPA on 31.10.2019 and a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued against him on 8.11.2019 whereafter the proceedings under Section 13(4) came to be initiated on 4.3.2020. Barring initiation of the proceedings under Section 13((4) of the SARFAESI Act, all other events have taken place prior to March 1, 2020. The aforesaid clause clearly indicates that a complaint would be maintainable under the scheme wherein the default relates to a period of 30 days prior to March 1, 2020. In the present case, once the loan was declared as NPA on 31.10.2021, we are unable to find any justification as to how the appellant could institute a claim within the scope of the aforesaid scheme.
9. In any case, the complaint instituted by the appellant came to be forwarded to the office of the RBI Ombudsman i.e. Centralized Receipt and Processing Centre where on scrutiny it was found that such a complaint was not maintainable before the RBI Ombudsman as it was not accompanied with the requisite documents thus it was closed under Clause 16(1)(a) read with Section 10(2(a)(i) of the Reserve Bank-Integrated Ombudsman scheme-2021.
10. The applicant/complainant was advised to approach the internal grievance redressal mechanism(internal Ombudsman) of the regulated entity/Bank first and in case his grievance was not redressed within 30 days from the date of approaching the internal grievance redressal mechanism, then the complainant was left at liberty to approach the Reserve Bank of India- Integrated Ombudsman.
11. It is this communication which was assailed by the appellant before the writ court. It is to be noted that the appellant has already instituted Securitization Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow where the proceedings are pending.
12. As observed herein-above, the appellant has failed to establish his complaint within the scope of the scheme issued by the RBI on 6.8.2020 and that apart a writ petition was instituted by the appellant before this Court i.e. Writ C 24873 of 2021 for availing the benefit of installments to pay off the dues which was granted to the appellant by the order dated 27.4.2022. The appellant having committed default even with reference to the order passed by this Court on 27.4.2022 led the writ court to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution and this is evident from the order passed on 26.5.2022.
13. Not only that the complaint made by the appellant was not covered within the scope of the scheme as has been observed above, the appellant has doubly committed default of the order passed by this court whereby the benefit of installments was granted to him.
14. In this background a writ petition i.e. Writ C No. 11392 of 2022 was further filed by the appellant against a communication of the Centralized Receipt and Processing Centre treating it to be an order passed by the RBI Ombudsman. The writ court where the scope of Section 30A of the SARFAESI Act fell for consideration has considered the same and opined that such a complaint would not lie against the Bank.
15. Not only that the complaint was not covered within the scope of Section 30-A of the SARFAESI Act but a writ petition even otherwise would not lie merely against a communication of the Centralized Receipt and Processing Centre particularly when the case of the appellant is not covered under the scheme issued by the Reserve Bank of India on 6.8.2020 and he having availed the benefit of installments before this Court with the passing of the order dated 27.4.2022 has nevertheless remained a defaulter.
16. Be that as it may, we find no good ground to interfere with the order passed by the writ court in the appellate jurisdiction of this Court, however dismissal of the present special appeal would not prejudice the case of the appellant in the pending securitization application.
17. The intra court appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(Subhash Vidyarthi J.) (A. R. Masoodi J.)
Order Date :- 21.2.2025
kanhaiya
