Delhi High Court
Dr Pallavi Yadav & Anr. vs Vijaya Bank & Ors. on 4 June, 2021
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 04.06.2021
+ LPA 183/2021 & CM APPL. 18503/2021 & CM APPL. 18561-
63/2021
DR PALLAVI YADAV & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr.S.D. Singh & Ms.Shweta
Sinha, Advs.
versus
VIJAYA BANK & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Kush Sharma, Standing
Counsel for BOB.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
The petition has been heard by way of video conferencing.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the
judgment and order dated 19.05.2021 passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Court, in C.M. No. 16621 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.
5073 of 2019, dismissing the application for interim relief filed by the
appellants herein.
2. In the said application, the appellants had prayed for the
following reliefs:-
"a. stay the operation of notice dated
06.04.2021 issued by chief
manager/authorised officer of Bank of Baroda
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
LPA 183/2021
by issuing direction to the bank to accept the
offer made by the petitioners and C.M. NO.
3298 of 2020 be taken up for hearing with this
application and consider the reliefs as sought
for in the writ petition including the closing of
account qua the Petitioners/guarantors and
further directions be issued for releasing the
property no. A-154, 3rd Floor, Block-A, Sector
- 8, Dwarka, New Delhi, owned by Petitioner
no.1.
b. to take the steps for selling of the
mortgage property owned by principal
borrowers Max Life Care Pvt. Ltd. namely:-
i. Hospital equipment, machineries, furniture
and fixtures, ambulance etc.
ii. current assets consisting of stocks of
medicines and other medical equipments and
book debts and
iii. recover the amount of L.I.C. Policy No.
127472843 dated 21.2.2015 in the name of
Mr.Nitender Singh with a single premium paid
of Rs.10,9,800/- and sum assured of Rs.
17,00,000/-.
c. to disclose the amount lying in the
current A/C. 600200301000704 of the
Principal borrower Max Life Care Pvt. Ltd.
and adjust the amount lying therein towards
the loan amount."
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned
Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the remedy under Section 17
of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, ('SARFAESI Act') is not
available against a notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. He
further submits that in the present case, an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs had
been deposited by the principal borrower with the respondent-Bank,
which has not been taken into account by the respondents while
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
LPA 183/2021
issuing the notice dated 06.04.2021. He submits that only an amount
of approximately Rs. 11 lakhs would be payable if complete accounts
are rendered by the respondents against the loan account. He has
taken us through the list of dates wherein the calculation of the amount
due according to the appellants has been worked out.
4. The above submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants
have been refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents, who
submits that this is yet another attempt of the appellants to somehow
halt the recovery procedure adopted by the respondent-Bank. He
further submits that on any action being taken by the respondents
under Section 13(4) of the Act, the appellants shall always be at
liberty to invoke the statutory remedy provided under the SARFAESI
Act.
5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6. The learned Single Judge in the Impugned Order, placing
reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court has rightly observed
that the High Court should be circumspect in entertaining Writ
Petitions on issues that are to be adjudicated before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the SARFAESI Act. The findings of
the learned Single Judge in this regard, are as under:-
"2. The communication dated 06.04.2021,
which is sought to be challenged by the
petitioners by way of this application, is a
notice issued by the respondent-Bank under
Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
LPA 183/2021
["the SARFAESI Act"]. As far as measures
taken by banks and financial institutions under
the SARFAESI Act are concerned, the
petitioners have an alternative remedy of
appeal under Section 17 of the said Act. The
settled law is that writ proceedings will
normally not be entertained against measures
taken under the SARFAESI Act. The judgment
of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India
vs. Satyawati Tondon and Ors. (2010) 8 SCC
110 (paragraphs 43 to 46), is clear on this
point. Satyawati Tondon has been followed
inter alia in Authorized Officer, State Bank of
Travancore vs. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85
and C. Bright vs. District Collector & Ors.,
2020 SCC OnLine SC 909."
7. As far as the submission on the amount that is due and payable
by the appellants as a guarantor is concerned, the same could not have
been adjudicated in the Writ Petition filed by the appellants. It may be
noted that the Writ Petition itself prays for a direction to the
respondent-Bank to accept a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs as a One-Time
Settlement. It further prays that the respondent-Bank be directed to
release the property mortgaged with the bank and recover its amount
by selling the other equipment mentioned in Annexure P-2 to the Writ
Petition.
8. We may also note that the application challenged a notice under
Section 13(2) of the Act. The remedy of the appellants against such
notice would be in form of a representation to the respondent-Bank in
terms of Section 13(3) of the SARFAESI Act. The appellants claim to
have made such a representation vide letter dated 05.05.2021. In case,
the decision of the respondents in terms of Section 13(3A) of the Act
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
LPA 183/2021
is adverse to the appellants and the respondent-Bank proceeds to take
action under Section 13(4) of the Act, the appellants would be at
liberty to challenge the same, in accordance with law.
9. In view of the same, we find no infirmity in the order passed by
the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.
10. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the
order be also forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MANMOHAN, J
JUNE 4, 2021/rv
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:SHALOO BATRA
LPA 183/2021
