Madhya Pradesh High Court
Krish Talreja vs Canara Bank Through The Authorised ... on 28 May, 2024
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
ON THE 28 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 15019 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
KRISH TALREJA S/O PRAKASH TALREJA 81, TRIVENI
EXTENTION INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ASHUTOSH NIMGAONKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. CANARA BANK THROUGH THE AUTHORISED
OFFICER CUM CHIEF MANAGER 3, INDRAPURI
COLONY, NEAR BHAWARKUA CIRCLE
NAULAKHA, A.B. ROAD, INDORE (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SANGEETA CHUGH W/O LAKHMICHAND CHUGH
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS WOMAN FLAT NO. 301,
410 SATGURU PLAZA, KHATIWALA TANK, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS)
This petition coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
Dharmadhikari passed the following:
ORDER
Heard on the question of admission & interim relief.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed
seeking following reliefs:-
a. Direct the Respondent No.1 to clarify on the count of clear title of the
subject property and give extension to deposit the balance amount, or
Alternatively;
b. Direct the Respondent Bank to maintain status quo till the
Secruitization Application to be filed by the Petitioner / Auction
Purchaser is disposed;
c. Direct the Ld. Debt Recovery Tribunal not to treat the Securitization
application barred by limitation;
d. Any other relief(s), which this Hon'ble Court may meet fit to be
granted to the petitioner under the facts and circumstances of the present
case.
02. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for
redressal of the same grievance, the petitioner has availed the alternative remedy
and filed Securitization Application No.1248/2024 before the Debt Recovery
Tribunal, Jabalpur which is pending consideration.
03. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has already availed the
alternative remedy by filing the Securatization Application No.1248/2024 before
the DRT, Jabalpur and the same is pending for the further adjudication.
04. The Apex Court in the case of ICICI Bank Limited and others v/s
Umakanta Mohapatra & Others reported in (2019) 13 SCC 497 has held as
follows:-
"2. Despite several judgments of this Court, including a judgment by
Hon'ble Navin Sinha, J., as recently as on 30-1-2018, in State Bank of
Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew
K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 41], the High Courts
continue to entertain matters which arise under the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest
Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), and keep granting interim orders in favour of
persons who are nonperforming assets (NPAs)."3. The writ petition itself
was not maintainable, as a result of which, in view of our recent
judgment, which has followed earlier judgments of this Court, held as
follows:(SCC p. 94, para 17).17. We cannot help but disapprove the
approach of them High Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh
Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd.
[Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering
Works (P)Ltd.,(1997) 6 SCC 450], observing: (SCC p.463, para 32).
32. When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial
pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to
say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to
ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is
clearly contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial adventurism
cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the
subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing
whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful
and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this tendency
stops.
4. The writ petition, in this case, being not maintainable, obviously, all
orders passed must perish, including the impugned order, which is set
aside.
5. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if
any shall stand disposed of."
05. Apart from this, the Apex Court in the case of Kalabharti
Advertising v/s Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Others reported in
(2010) 9 SCC 437 has poignantly held as under:-
"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, AIR1952SC
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., AIR1966SC1441; and Premier
Automobiles Ltd.v . Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke & Ors., AIR 1975
SC 2238)."
06. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of M/S South Indian Bank
Limited & Others v/s Naveen Mathew Philip & Another Etc Etc reported in
2023 Livelaw (SC) 320 has deprecated the practice adopted by the High
Courts whereby the writ petitions are being entertained in Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 (for short SARFAESI Act hereinafter) matters, especially against the
private banks when the statute prescribes a particular mode, an attempt to
circumvent shall not be encouraged by the writ Court. The litigant cannot avoid
the non- compliance of approaching the Tribunal which requires the
prescription of fee and use of constitutional remedy as an alternative. The Apex
Court has also deprecated the practice of approaching the High Court for
consideration of an offer by the borrower.
07. The Apex Court in the case of M/S South Indian Bank Ltd.(supra)
further went on to hold that "we deprecate such practice of entertaining the writ
petitions by the High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India without exhausting the alternative remedy available under
the law."
08. In the light of the aforesaid pronouncements of the Apex Court, this
Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition considering the fact that the
Securatization Application No.1248/2024 is already pending before the learned
DRT, Jabalpur and no parallel proceedings for the redressal of the same
grievance can be continued, therefore the present petition being bereft of merit
and substance is hereby dismissed.
No order as to cost.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (GAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Ravi
