Gurpreet Singh And Ors vs Authorized Officer Idfc First ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 14717 P&H

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 14717 P&H
Judgement Date : 31 August, 2023

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurpreet Singh And Ors vs Authorized Officer Idfc First ... on 31 August, 2023

                                                  Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:114337-DB




CWP-28357-2022                     1           2023:PHHC:114337-DB


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

207                                      CWP-28357-2022
                                         Date of Decision: 31.08.2023

GURPREET SINGH AND ORS
                                                       ... Petitioners
                    VERSUS

AUTHORIZED OFFICER IDFC
FIRST BANK LTD
                                                       ....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
       HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE

Present:     Mr. Parunjit Singh, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

             Mr. Aditya Grover, Advocate for
             Mr. Naveen Sihag, Advocate
             for the respondent.

                           *****

LISA GILL, J.(Oral)

1. Prayer in this writ petition is for quashing notice dated

24.12.2021 (Annexure P-4) issued under Section 13 (2) of

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement

of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act), 2002 as well as notice under

Section 13 (4) of SARFAESI Act (Annexure P-5).

2. Notice of motion was issued in this writ petition by Co-

ordinate Bench on 09.12.2022 while directing that subject to the

petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.55,302/- in the home loan account

and Rs.1,74,686/- in the LAP Suvidha account within two weeks and

continuing to pay the future installments as and when they fall due, no

coercive action would be taken against them.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that after

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:114337-DB

CWP-28357-2022 2 2023:PHHC:114337-DB

deposit of the amount as above in home loan account and the LAP

Suvidha account, the petitioners have not deposited any of the

installments as they fall due thereafter. This is not refuted by learned

counsel for the petitioners who submits that this default is due to

unavoidable circumstances and exigencies faced by the petitioners.

4. Be that as it may, it is undeniable that petitioners have an

efficacious remedy under the SARFAESI Act for challenging the

proceedings as detailed in the foregoing paras. It has been held by

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon

and others, 2010(8) SCC 110 and South Indian Bank Ltd. and

others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and another, 2023(2) RCR (Civil)

771. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of M/s South Indian Bank

(supra) while reiterating its earlier judgments held that where an

alternate efficacious remedy is available to the litigant before a Forum

constituted under a statute, interference by the High Court in exercise of

jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India should be

restricted to exceptional cases It was held that :-

"15. The object and reasons behind the Act 54 of 2002 are very clear as observed by this Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India, (2004) 4 SCC 311. While it facilitates a faster and smoother mode of recovery sans any interference from the Court, it does provide a fair mechanism in the form of the Tribunal being manned by a legally trained mind. The Tribunal is clothed with a wide range of powers to set aside an illegal order, and thereafter, grant consequential reliefs, including re-possession and payment of compensation and costs. Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act gives an expansive

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:114337-DB

CWP-28357-2022 3 2023:PHHC:114337-DB

meaning to the expression "any person", who could approach the Tribunal.

XXX

18. While doing so, we are conscious of the fact that the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are rather wide but are required to be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances in matters pertaining to proceedings and adjudicatory scheme qua a statute, more so in commercial matters involving a lender and a borrower, when the legislature has provided for a specific mechanism for appropriate redressal."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner

No.2 faced a serious medical condition due to which payments could

not be made. However, he is unable to point out any exceptional or

extraordinary circumstance which calls for interference by this Court.

Pleas as raised before us are very well within the realm of consideration

by the learned Tribunal.

6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the matter,

this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the

remedies as available to them in accordance with law.

(LISA GILL) JUDGE

(RITU TAGORE) JUDGE

31.08.2023 Rimpal