Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Nikon Sales vs Bank Of Baroda And Ors on 17 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:052997-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:052997 -DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(126) CWP-3026-2023
Decided on : 17.04.2023
M/s Nikon Sales
......Petitioner(s)
Versus
Bank of Baroda & others
......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Present: Mr.D.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for
Mr.Vikas Bali, Advocate for the petitioner (s).
Mr.S.K.Dhir, Advocate, for the respondent-Bank.
*****
G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral)
1. Challenge in the present writ petition, filed under Article 226/227
of the Constitution of India is to the securitization proceedings including the
reply to the notice dated 17.11.2022 (Annexure P-13) issued by the
respondent-Bank under the Securitization and Re-construction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the 'Act').
2. A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that possession
notice dated 07.11.2022 (Annexure R-5) had also been issued under Section
13(4) of the Act wherein possession has been taken of the property on
07.11.2022 which is of residential premises.
On 27.03.2023, the following order was passed:
"A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that notice under
Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:052997-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:052997 -DB
'Act') was issued on 30.08.2022 (Annexure P-12) on account of the
outstandings of Rs.1,04,55,855.49 which was due on 25.08.2022.
Counsel for the respondent-Bank informs us that at this
point of time, approximately Rs.1,50,00,000/- is due.
Apparently application under Section 14 of the Act was
filed on 14.11.2022 (Annexure P-15) and it is pointed out that there is
an order also dated 19.12.2022 (Annexure P-17). The property was
also put to sale for 28.02.2023 vide notice dated 13.01.2023 (Annexure
P-18).
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
shall settle the matter.
If that is so, let a demand draft of Rs.30,00,000/- in
favour of the respondent-Bank be produced on the next date of hearing
to show the bona fides of the petitioner.
List on 17.04.2023."
3. Today, the requisite bank draft of Rs.30 lakhs has not been
produced. Section 17 of the Act provides a remedy to the person who is
aggrieved under the measures taken under Section 13(4) of the Act which have
been time and again settled by the Apex Court and the view taken in United
Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon & others, (2010) 8 SCC 110 was
followed. In Union Bank of India and another vs. Panchanan Subudhi,
(2010) 15 SCC 552; Kaniyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others vs. State of
Maharashtra and others, (2011) 2 SCC 782; G.M., Sri Siddeshwara Co-
operative Bank Ltd. & another vs. Sri Ikbal & others, 2013 (10) SCC 83; M/s
Hindon Forge Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through
District Magistrate Ghaziabad and another, 2018 AIR SC 5383 and
Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore & another vs. Mathew K.C.,
2018 AIR (SC) 676, the said view has been further reiterated.
4. Recently, the Apex Court, while dealing with notice of motion
order passed by this Court whereby, the writ petition had been entertained
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:052997-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:052997 -DB
against the securitization proceedings initiated and interim protection had been
granted whereby loanees had been declared NPA contrary to the order dated
27.03.2023 passed by the Apex Court was a subject matter of consideration in
SLP No. 17335 of 2022, Authorized Officer, Kotak Mahindra Bank vs. Anil
Kumar Malhotra and another. The Apex Court set aside the interim order and
virtually directed the petitioner to take recourse to alternative remedy by
passing the following order:-
"1. Leave granted.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and
order dated 17.01.2022 passed by the High Court of
of 2022.
4. We are of the considered view that the High Court
was not justified in passing the impugned judgment
and order.
5. The impugned judgment and order has the effect of
scuttling the proceedings under the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002.
6. If the appellant was aggrieved by an order passed
under Section 13(2) of the the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002, the appellant had an
alternate remedy under the provisions of the said Act.
7. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court is quashed and set
aside and the appeal is allowed.
8. Needless to state that the order passed herein would
not affect the right of the appellant to take recourse to
the alternate remedy.
9. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:052997-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:052997 -DB
5. In such circumstances, keeping in view the settled principle of
law, once securitization proceedings have been initiated after taking recourse
to Section 13(4) and further possession is being taken under Section 14 while
taking recourse to the provisions of the Act, we are of the considered opinion
that firstly the remedy would lie with the Tribunal. Only in exceptional cases
this Court would exercise its jurisdiction. Nothing has been shown to bring the
case within the ambit of those exceptional circumstances.
6. Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, the present writ
petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail his
remedy before the Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
(HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN)
17.04.2023 JUDGE
Sailesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:052997-DB
4 of 4
