Madhya Pradesh High Court
Devendra Kumar Rai vs State Bank Of India on 13 June, 2022
Author: Sujoy Paul
1
W.P. NO.12032 OF 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR
BEFORE
SHRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
&
SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 13th OF JUNE 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 12032 of 2022
BETWEEN :-
DEVENDRA KUMAR RAI AGE
50 YEARS, S/o LATE
COLLECTOR RAI, OCCUPATION
PROPRIETOR-DEVENDRA
ENTERPRISES, R/O BHAGAT
SINGH COLONY, MEDHOLI,
MORWA, DISTRICT
SINGROULI(M.P.) PIN 486889
......PETITIONER
(By SHRI N.S. RUPRAH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA
THROUGH ASSTT. GENERAL
MANAGER, STRESSED ASSETS
RECOVERY BRANCH (SARB),
(AUTHORIZED OFFICER) 3RD
FLOOR, ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICE BUILDING,
VIJAYNAGAR, JABALPUR (M.P.)
PIN 482002
2. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE
BANK OF INDIA, JHINGURDA
PROJECT, SINGRAULI,
DISTRICT- SINGRAULI, (M.P.)
2
W.P. NO.12032 OF 2022
3. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH
THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF
FINANCE, NEW DELHI
4. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA,
CENTRAL OFFICE BUILDING
SHAHID BAGHAT SINGH ROAD,
MUMBAI 400023
........Respondent
(By SHRI PRABHANSHU SHUKLA, ADVOCATE FOR THE BANK)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This writ petition coming on for hearing this day, Shri Justice
Sujoy Paul, Judge passed the following :
ORDER
Heard on the question of availability of alternative remedy.
2. The petitioner in para 3 of writ petition declared that " he has
availed all the remedies which are available to him in the law....."
3. Shri Prabhanshu Shukla, Advocate raised an objection about
availability of alternative remedy under Section 18 of the Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002.
4. Shri Ruprah learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impugned order dated 22.04.2022 (Annexure-P/1) is an interlocutory
order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Apex Court in (2018) 3
SCC 85 (Authorised Officer, State Bank Of Travancore and Another
W.P. NO.12032 OF 2022
Vs. Mathew K.C.) deprecated the practice of entertaining writ petition
despite availability of alternative remedy but said judgment is
distinguishable. Para-6 of the said judgment is relied upon to contend
that the pleadings in the writ petition were bald and ambiguous. In this
backdrop, the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of entertaining the
petition by the High Court.
5. Shri Ruprah submits that the present writ petition is properly
drafted and pregnant with the necessary specific pleadings. Thus,
principle laid down in the judgment of Mathew K.C. (Supra) cannot be
pressed into service.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned Debts
Recovery Tribunal came to hold that under the provisions of
Securitisation Act, no interim relief is due to the petitioner. Hence, the
only remedy to the petitioner is of filing of present petition.
7. Shri Prabhanshu Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent/Bank
placed reliance on the recent order of Supreme Court dated 11.05.2022
passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.(s). 13241-13242/2019 (Kotak
Mahindra Bank Limited Vs. Dilip Bhosale), wherein the Apex Court
again depricated the practice of entertaining the writ petition despite
availability of alternative remedy.
W.P. NO.12032 OF 2022
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties on the question of
alternative remedy.
9. Section 18(1) of the Securitisation Act reads as under :
18. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal. - (1) Any person
aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts
Recovery Tribunal [under section 17, may prefer an
appeal along with such fee, as may be prescribed] to
an Appellate Tribunal within thirty days from the date
of receipt of the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal.
[Emphasis supplied]
10. A plain reading of the appellate provision makes it clear that the
legislature in its wisdom has used the words "any order" made by the
Debts Recovery Tribunal against which the appeal lies. The expression
"any order" in our view is wide enough to include an interlocutory order.
11. We find support in our view from judgments of various High Courts.
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud (as His Lordship then was) speaking for Division
Bench of Bombay High Court in (2010) SCC OnLine Bom 1733
(Vinay Container Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Axis Bank) opined as :
W.P. NO.12032 OF 2022
"8. Section 18 provides a right of appeal to a person
aggrieved by any order made by the Debts Recovery
Tribunal under section 17. The right of appeal under
section 18 arises in respect of "any order made by the
Debts Recovery Tribunal" albeit under section 17. The
section refers to any order and those words are
comprehensive enough to include a final as well as an
interlocutory order."
12. The same view is followed by the Division Bench of Delhi High
Court in 2011 SCC OnLine Del 1189 (Sand Plast (India) Ltd. Vs.
Punjab National Bank) (also reported in AIR 2011 Delhi 196). The
another Division Bench of Bombay High Court in (2013) SCC OnLine
Bom 2098, Keystone Constructions Vs. State Bank of India has
followed the same ratio. The Himchal Pradesh High Court in 2015 SCC
OnLine HP 2436 (Amy Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of Patiala)
opined that even interlocutory order passed by DRT can be called in
question before Appellate Tribunal by filing appeal under Section 18 of
the said Act.
13. So far as factual backdrop of the present case is concerned, in our
view DRAT is best suited to examine the factual aspects as well. There
W.P. NO.12032 OF 2022
is nothing which makes it obligatory for us to entertain this writ petition
when efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner.
14. In Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vs. Dilip Bhosale, (supra) the
Apex Court held as under:-
"Before parting with the order, we would like to
observe that this Court is consistent of the view and can
be noticed from the judgment in United Bank of India Vs.
Satyawati Tandon & Ors. (2010) 8 SCC 110, that when a
remedy under the statute is available and in the instant
case which indeed was availed by the
respondent/borrower, filing of a writ petition under article
226 of the Constitutiton is to be discouraged by the High
Court."
15. In view of availability of alternative remedy, the interference is
declined. The petition is disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioner
to avail alternative remedy of appeal.
(SUJOY PAUL) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Akanksha/Rashmi
AKANKSH Digitally signed by AKANKSHA MAURYA
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
2.5.4.20=249af511aff03adb5e1023e836f6223dd6fcc17fe5560a49be80567d4ab3
A MAURYA
81a9, pseudonym=F0043B75FB3395764B7E200CB6C04DA7EF3E6DD4,
serialNumber=08FDD0FD574AF6278257F149F3D11B8DF5BC8C51B2811BAF3E
9439DD98282D77, cn=AKANKSHA MAURYA
Date: 2022.06.14 14:58:10 +05'30'
