Delhi High Court
Standard Chartered Bank vs Vishal Global Ltd. & Ors. on 30 January, 2015
Author: S.Ravindra Bhat
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 30th January, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 862/2015
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sumit Bansal, Mr. Ateev Mathur
and Mrs. Richa Oberoi, Adv.
versus
VISHAL GLOBAL LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Pallav Saxena and Mr. Abhishek
Kumar, Adv. for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
Caveat No.96/2015
Counsel for the caveator has entered appearance.
Caveat stands discharged.
W.P.(C) 862/2015
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order of the Recovery Officer in Debts
Recovery Tribunal-I, New Delhi in recovery proceedings 263/2002. It is
stated that the petitioner was holder of the recovery certificate, issued
pursuant to final order in its original application under Section 19 of the
Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
WP(C)No.862/2015 Page | 1
During the pendency of recovery proceedings, petitioner initiated
proceedings under Section 13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter
referred to as "SARFAESI Act"). In the meantime, WP 6877/2009, which
was filed challenging the assignment deed by State Bank of India assigning
the recovery certificate in favour of the petitioner-bank was permitted to be
withdrawn on 27.8.2010. It is stated that the petitioner filed another writ
petition 7707/2010 for identical relief which was permitted to be withdrawn,
yet again, on 19.11.2011. In a third round, another application for restoring
of writ petition 6877/2009 was sought. In this round, another attempt to stall
the proceedings under SARFAESI Act by seeking interim orders was made,
which was initially accepted by the Court. The interim stay was
subsequently vacated on 03.08.2011 and on 09.08.2011, the Court dismissed
the proceedings seeking restoration of the application. The petitioner
pointedly refers to the order of 09.08.2011, particularly para 17 and 18
which are in the following terms :
"17. Having found the petitioner to have indulged in
suppression of facts, she cannot be held to be entitled to the
relief of pursuing this petition, even if her application for
revival of this writ petition otherwise had any merits. For the
same reasons, I also do not find any merit in the application of
the petitioner for restoration of the order dated 27 th May, 2011.
18. As far as the punishment to be meted out to the petitioner is
concerned, I tend to accept the contention of the senior counsel
for the petitioner of the facts having remained to be informed to
this Court owing to a bona fide mistake. Considering the said
fact and further considering that the counsel advising the
WP(C)No.862/2015 Page | 2
petitioner is a young professional, I tend to put the matter to
quietus by imposing punishment on the petitioner of payment of
₹1 lac to be deposited with Delhi High Court Legal Services
Authority. The same be done within four weeks. If the proof of
payment is not deposited with the Registry within four weeks,
the matter to be relisted for appropriate directions."
2. It is submitted that the order dated 09.08.2011 of the Single Judge was
unsuccessfully challenged before the Division Bench, which rejected the
appeal in LPA 827/2011 on 06.02.2012, directing deposit of costs of the sum
of ₹1 lakh.
3. In the meanwhile an appeal SA 45/2011 was preferred before the
DRT, under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act in which interim order was
declined on 07.05.2011. It is submitted that having repeatedly sought the
invalidation and stalling of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and
having been unsuccessful in view of the law by Supreme Court in
M/s Transcore Vs Union of India & Anr (2008) 1 SCC 125, the
respondent/borrower could not have sought collateral relief before the
Recovery Officer yet again urging the same contentions with respect to the
maintainability of SARFAESI proceedings.
4. By the order dated 04.12.2014, the recovery officer appears to have
examined and pronounced the validity of the SARFAESI proceedings.
5. Counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance notice, urges that
the Recovery Officer acted correctly, and after due appreciation of law, and
urges that the petitioner ought not to be allowed to approach this Court
without exhausting the appellate remedy.
6. It was urged during the proceedings that the respondent has grossly
abused the process of the Court. This Court is of the opinion that whilst
WP(C)No.862/2015 Page | 3
there could be some truth in this submission - considering that the
respondent approached the Court repeatedly and on each occasion was
unsuccessful, and also, having lost before the Division Bench the
appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to exhaust its appellate
remedies under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks &
Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Having regard to the circumstances, if the
petitioner approaches the DRT within two weeks, its appeal shall be
considered and decided on the merits within four weeks thereafter. The
DRT is directed to take all expeditious steps to ensure service upon the
respondent so that the directions of this Court are complied with in letter and
spirit.
7. The counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw the petition.
The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn in the above terms.
8. The respondent who is represented on advance notice shall also be
served through its counsel who has appeared all through.
9. Stay application is also disposed of.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
R.K.GAUBA
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 30, 2015
vld
WP(C)No.862/2015 Page | 4
