Delhi High Court
M/S Deco Industries (India) vs Karnataka Bank Ltd & Ors on 9 August, 2017
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6763/2017 and CMs 28188-89/2017
M/S DECO INDUSTRIES (INDIA) ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. Sangam Patnaik, with
Mr. Rajiv Gupta, Ms. Swyansidha and
Mr. Rahul Singhal Advocates
versus
KARNATAKA BANK LTD & ORS ..... Respondents
Through : Ms. Usha Singh, Advocate for R-4
with Mr. Manoj Gupta, from Office of JMFARC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA
ORDER
% 09.08.2017
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia,
for the following reliefs :
"(a) set aside order dated 07.04.2017 passed by DRT III,
Chandigarh in SA No.265/2017 (old No.O.A. No.180/2013);
(b) set aside operation of impugned order dated 20.03.2017
passed by the Ld. DRAT, Delhi in Misc.Appeal No.60/2016 titled
Vikram Bakshi vs. HDFC passed by DRAT."
2. At the outset, we have requested Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the
petitioner to address arguments on the maintainability of the present petition
in this Court when a statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the learned
DRAT is available under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that till date, the
petitioner has not approached the DRAT against the impugned order dated
7.4.2017 passed by the DRT-III, Chandigarh and the explanation offered for
not doing so is that relying on the decision of the DRAT dated 20.3.2017,
passed in the case of Vikram Bakshi vs. HDFC & Ors., the DRT has
declined to entertain the petitioner's application and therefore, it cannot
expect that any relief will be granted to it by the appellate forum, i.e., the
DRAT.
4. Pertinently, the decision of the DRAT in the case of Vikram Bakshi
(supra) has been assailed by the appellant in the said case by filing a writ
petition in the High Court, which is pending adjudication. However, that
alone cannot be a ground for the petitioner to evade filing an appeal before
the DRAT or approach this Court directly in writ proceedings praying inter
alia for setting aside the order of the DRAT in the captioned case, where it
is not even a party.
5. We may further note that the impugned order has been passed by the
DRT-III, Chandigarh and if the petitioner is advised that it has a remedy of
filing a writ petition, then it ought to have approached the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana for appropriate relief.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to elaborate that three
separate petitions were filed by the petitioner, two before the DRT at Delhi
and one before the DRT at Chandigarh. By a consent order dated 8.3.2017
passed by the DRAT in Misc. Appeal No.184/2016, all the three matters
were directed to be tried by one DRT at Chandigarh. Though a copy of the
order dated 8.3.2017 has not been filed, the same has been handed over by
learned counsel for the petitioner for our perusal and is taken on record.
7. On examining the order dated 08.07.2015 it transpires that it was the
petitioner who had moved an application before the DRAT, seeking
common trial by one DRT of three different SAs filed by it and pending
before three different DRTs, in respect of the same loan account that had
been declared as an NPA by the respondent/Bank in which, two different
properties were mortgaged to secure the repayment of the loan, one situated
in Delhi and the other in Gurgaon, Haryana. In view of the prayer for
transfer & clubbing made by the petitioner before the DRAT, learned
counsel for the respondent had also submitted that if all the three SAs filed
by the petitioner were to be tried by one DRT, then the OA filed by the Bank
and pending before the DRT-II, Delhi be also transferred to the same DRT
so that all the cases could be tried together. After considering the
submissions made by the counsels for the parties, the DRAT had allowed
petitioner's applications for seeking transfer and clubbing of all the three
SAs and further, directed that the respondent/Bank's OA No.516/2015
pending before DRT-II, Delhi be transferred to DRT-III, Chandigarh for
trial.
8. Given the above background, it cannot be argued now that if the
petitioner has a grievance against an order passed by DRT-III, Chandigarh
in respect of one of the SAs that was initially filed in Delhi, then it still
retains the option of approaching this Court for relief. Once the petitioner
has exercised its option of seeking common trial of all the three SAs before
the DRT, Chandigarh, then any order passed by the said forum, in any one
of the SAs ought to be assailed only before the competent court that is
vested with territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said petition.
9. In the above facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to entertain
the present petition only because the impugned order has been passed by the
DRT-III, Chandigarh in respect of a petition that was initially filed by the
petitioner in Delhi, when it was at its behest that all the three petitions filed
by it, were transferred by the learned DRAT to the DRT-III, Chandigarh, for
being tried together along with OA No.516/15, filed by the
respondent/Bank. We are also of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be
permitted to file the present petition and lay a challenge to a decision of the
DRAT rendered in the case of Vikram Bakshi (supra), when admittedly, it is
not a party to the said proceedings. If it is the petitioner's case that it need
not approach the DRAT at all, though the Statute provides for the remedy of
an appeal before the said Forum, and instead, it is entitled to approach the
writ court directly against an order passed by the DRT, Chandigarh, even so,
it shall have to approach the court vested with the territorial jurisdiction to
entertain such a petition.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we decline to entertain the present petition
which is dismissed as not maintainable along with the pending applications.
However, leave is granted to the petitioner to seek legal recourse against the
impugned order before the appropriate forum.
HIMA KOHLI, J
A.K. CHAWLA, J
AUGUST 09, 2017
sk/bh/mk/ap
