Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Gomey Knitwears And Ors vs Idfc First Bank Ltd And Anr on 25 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058435-DB
109 CM-6720-CWP-2023 IN/AND -1-
CWP-1499-2023 (O&M)
2023:PHHC:058435-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM-6720-CWP-2023 IN/AND
CWP-1499-2023 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 25.04.2023
M/S GOMCY KNITWEARS AND OTHERS
......PETITIONERS
VS.
IDFC FIRST BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER
.........RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Present: Mr.Sholab Arora, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Ms. Diksha Kakkar, Advocate, for
Mr. Aditya Grover, Advocate,
for the respondent-Bank.
*****
G.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. (ORAL)
CM-6720-CWP-2023
This application has been filed under Order VI Rule 7 read
with Section 151 CPC for amendment of the writ petition.
Notice in the application.
Ms. Diksha Kakkar, Advocate, for Mr. Aditya Grover,
Advocate, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-Bank.
Keeping in view the averments made in the application which
is duly supported by an affidavit of petitioner No. 2, the application is
allowed and the amended writ petition is taken on record.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058435-DB
109 CM-6720-CWP-2023 IN/AND -2-
CWP-1499-2023 (O&M)
2023:PHHC:058435-DB
With the consent of counsel for the parties, main case is taken
on Board today itself for hearing.
CWP-1499-2023 (O&M)
1. The challenge has been made primarily to the securitisation
proceedings whereby symbolic possession notice dated 15.03.2023
(Annexure P-17) has been issued. A perusal of the said annexure would go
on show that symbolic possession was taken under Section 13 (4) of the
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act') read with Rule 9 of the
Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, on 14.03.2023 of the mortgaged
property.
2. The notice dated 14.12.2022 issued under Section 13 (2) of the
Act (Annexure P-2) would go on to show that there are huge outstanding to
the tune of `1,07,52,328.07/- against two loan accounts which were
declared NPA on 31.10.2022.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that
the benefit of the Reserve Bank of India's circular dated 17.03.2016
(Annexure P-3) is sought to be imposed.
4. Keeping in view the above, we are of the considered opinion
that there is an alternate remedy available under Section 17 of the Act. It is
settled principle that once there is an alternate and efficacious remedy
available, the Writ Court will not exercise its jurisdiction. Reliance can be
placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in SLP No. 22021-
22022 of 2022, M/s. South India Bank Ltd. and others vs. Naveen
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058435-DB
109 CM-6720-CWP-2023 IN/AND -3-
CWP-1499-2023 (O&M)
2023:PHHC:058435-DB
Mathew Philip and another decided on 17.04.2023, wherein all the
earlier precedents have been referred.
5. Regarding the issue of the circular, the Apex Court in Sardar
Associates and others Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank and others, (2009) 8
SCC 257 has held that the Tribunal is duly empowered to enforce the
statutory regulations. It has further been observed by the Apex Court in that
case that the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India are binding
and the OTS factor can also be agitated before the Tribunal. Relevant part
of the said judgment reads as under:-
"29. It may be that no specific prayer was made but
the same, in our opinion, keeping in view the
provisions of the 2002 Act, did not preclude the
Appellate Tribunal to consider the offer of the
appellants. The Appellate Tribunal in terms of the
provisions of the Act like the original Tribunal is
interested only in recovery of the amount. While
doing so, it, in our considered opinion, has the
requisite jurisdiction to consider the prayer made by
a debtor for one time settlement particularly in view
of the fact that the same is within the purview of One
Time Settlement Scheme of the Reserve Bank of
India. If a public sector bank is otherwise bound by
any guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India,
we see no reason as to why the same cannot be
enforced in terms of the provisions of the Act by the
Tribunal and consequently by the Appellate
Tribunal. It is not a case where the appellants had
prayed for quashing of a policy decision taken by
the respondent- Bank. The question which arose for
consideration before the Appellate Tribunal as also
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058435-DB
109 CM-6720-CWP-2023 IN/AND -4-
CWP-1499-2023 (O&M)
2023:PHHC:058435-DB
before the High Court was as to whether offer
having been made by the bank to the appellants
herein, it could have turned around and contend
that only because the appellants had furnished
security to the extent of Rs.11 crores, the same by
itself would entitle it to take recourse to a
discriminatory treatment. The answer to the said
question must be rendered in the negative."
6. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that
there is no offer as such to pay even 25% of the outstanding of the
mortgaged money to show the bona fide of the petitioners and as such
there are no valid circumstances to invoke the extra-ordinary writ
jurisdiction of this Court.
7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to
the petitioners to avail their alternate remedy as provided under the statute.
8. Since the petitioners had approached the Court on 31.01.2023
and the matter was pending, in case the application under Section 17 of the
Act is filed within a period of four weeks from today, the Tribunal shall
hear the securitisation proceedings on merits.
9. Pending miscellaneous application (s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
April 25, 2023 (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN)
nitin JUDGE
Whether Speaking Yes
Whether Reportable No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:058435-DB
4 of 4
