Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Yadav Restorant Thr. ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 August, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
1 WP No.8405/2021
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
WP No.8405/2021
M/s.Yadav Restaurant & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. & ors.
Indore, Dated:02.08.2021
Heard through video conferencing.
Ms.Sumanlata Tamrakar, learned counsel for petitioners.
Shri. Aditya Garg, learned GA for respondents/State.
Heard on admission.
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that against the
impugned order dated 25/2/2021 (Annexure P/1) passed u/S.14 of
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short SARFAESI Act)
although the petitioners have remedy of appeal and they intend to
avail the said remedy, till such time petitioner avails the said
remedy, an interim protection may be provided to them.
Petitioners are willing to pay the amount in question.
Shri Garg, learned GA opposed the prayer.
We have heard the parties at length.
Indisputably, the petitioners have a remedy and the impugned
order is passed way back in February, 2021. Considering the
availability of statutory alternative, efficacious remedy, we are not
inclined to interfere in this petition. More so, when learned counsel
for petitioners fairly accepted that petitioners are ready to avail the
said remedy. Thus, interest of justice will be served if this petition
is disposed of by permitting the petitioners to avail the said remedy.
In the event appropriate alternative proceedings are filed by
petitioner within 15 days from today, the tribunal shall decide the
said appeal/proceedings on merits and it shall not be dismissed on
the ground of delay.
So far prayer for grant of interim protection is concerned, it is
profitable to consider the judgment of Supreme Court in (2010) 9
SCC 437 (Kalabharti Advertising v/s Hemant Vimalnath
Narichan & Others). Para 22 reads thus:-
"22. It is a settled legal proposition that the
forum of the writ court cannot be used for the purpose
of giving interim relief as the only and the final relief
to any litigant. If the Court comes to the conclusion
that the matter requires adjudication by some other
appropriate forum and relegates the said party to
that forum, it should not grant any interim relief in
favour of such a litigant for an interregnum period
till the said party approaches the alternative forum
and obtains interim relief. (vide: State of Orissa v.
Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12; Amarsarjit
Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1305; State of
Orissa v. Ram Chandra Dev, AIR 1964 SC 685; State
of Bihar v. Rambalak Singh "Balak" & Ors., AIR 1966
SC 1441; and Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlakar
Shantaram Wadke & Ors., AIR 1975 SC 2238)."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the light of this judgment, no interim relief is due to the
petitioners. The petition is disposed of by reserving liberty to avail
the alternative remedy.
(SUJOY PAUL) (ANIL VERMA)
Judge Judge
vm
Digitally signed by
VARGHESE MATHEW
Date: 2021.08.03
16:13:23 -07'00'
