Calcutta High Court
Oriental Exports And Ors vs Reserve Bank Of India And Ors on 14 May, 2024
Author: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
Bench: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya
OD 7
WPO/365/2024
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
ORIENTAL EXPORTS AND ORS.
VS
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
Date: 14th May, 2024.
Appearance:
Mr. Pranit Bag, Adv.
Ms. Pooja Jewrajka, Adv.
Ms. Amani Kayan, Adv.
...for the petitioners
Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Adv.
Mr. S. Pal Choudhuri, Adv.
Ms. S. Pal, Adv.
...for the respondents
The Court: Learned senior counsel appearing for the bank takes a
preliminary objection as to maintainability of the writ petition. It is pointed out
that the premise of the relief sought in the writ petition is an order dated August
7, 2023 passed in O.A. No.189 of 2009 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal - 1,
Kolkata whereby the applicant bank therein (respondent herein) was directed to
release the securities to the defendants therein. It is argued that the petitioners
were among the defendants in the said proceeding and as such, the remedy of
the petitioners lies in an application under Section 19(25) of the Recovery of
Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the bank cites National Highways
Authority of India vs. Sheetal Jaidev Vade and Others reported at 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 1070 (equal to AIR 2022 SC 3980) where the Supreme Court
deprecated and disapproved the practice of entertaining writ petitions under
Article 226 of the Constitution to execute the award passed by the learned
Arbitral Tribunal/Court, without relegating the judgment creditor in whose
favour the award is passed to file an execution proceeding before the competent
Executing Court.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks to impress upon the
Court that the claim in the writ petition is not restricted to the order dated
August 7, 2023 but is independent of such order. It is submitted that the
petitioners, as guarantors, had given certain assets/shares as collateral
securities to cover the loan taken by one Schefields Limited.
Even after passing of the order dated August 7, 2023, the petitioners made
repeated and numerous communications to the bank. However, the bank
avoided to comply with the said order or to release the collateral securities of the
petitioners and repeatedly took a stand that the matter was pending
consideration before the higher authorities of the bank. Subsequently, the bank
has been attempting to coax the petitioners into entering into an agreement with
the bank.
Be that as it may, none of the reliefs sought in the writ petition are
independent or beyond the purview of that granted by the Debts Recovery
Tribunal by its order dated August 7, 2023 in O.A. No.189 of 2009 where the
Tribunal specifically directed the bank to release the securities to the defendants
therein. The petitioners were the co-defendants in the said proceedings and as
such, the only remedy which is available to the petitioners is in implementation
of the order of the tribunal before the tribunal itself under Section 19(25) of the
1993 Act.
The ratio laid down in National Highways Authority (supra) is apposite in
the context. Where there is a specific remedy available to the judgment creditor to
have the award executed before the concerned tribunal, there is no reason as to
why the writ petition ought to be entertained on such count.
In view of the above observations, WPO/365/2024 is disposed of by
granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned Debts Recovery
Tribunal for implementation of the order dated August 7, 2023 passed in O.A.
No.189 of 2009 under Section 19(25) of the 1993 Act.
It is expected that in the event such approach is made by the petitioners,
the Tribunal shall take up the matter at the earliest. This Court parts with the
matter with the hope and trust that the Tribunal shall dispose of such
implementation/execution application of the petitioners as expeditiously as
possible, positively within three months from the date of filing of the same before
the Tribunal.
No order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be made available
to the parties subject to compliance with the requisite formalities.
(SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.)
B.Pal
