Rakesh Kumar And Anr vs Reserve Bank Of India And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 14850 P&H

                                                Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115231-DB




CWP-21298-2022                   :1:                 2023:PHHC:115231-DB

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

221                                    CWP-21298-2022
                                       Date of Decision: 01.09.2023

RAKESH KUMAR AND ANR

                                                     ... Petitioners
                                 VERSUS

RESERVE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS

                                                     ....Respondents

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

Present:    Mr. Vaibhav Vats, Advocate for
            Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate
            for the petitioners.

            Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate and
            Mr. Ashutosh, Advocate
            for respondent-Bank.

                         *****

LISA GILL, J.(Oral)

1. Petitioners have filed this writ petition for setting aside

order dated 28.07.2022 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Faridabad under Section 14 of the Securitization and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest

Act (SARFAESI Act), 2002. There is a further prayer for directing the

respondents to settle the petitioners account by way of One Time

Settlement (OTS).

2. While issuing notice of motion on 20.09.2022 the Co-

ordinate Bench directed that subject to the petitioners depositing a sum

of Rs.6 lakhs by 23.09.2022, OTS proposal by the petitioners would be

considered. Dispossession of petitioners from secured asset was stayed,

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115231-DB

CWP-21298-2022 :2: 2023:PHHC:115231-DB

subject to abovesaid deposit and till decision qua OTS was taken by the

respondent-Bank and communicated to petitioners. Interim order it is

clarified would stand vacated in the event of non-payment of Rs.6 lakhs.

3. The said amount was not deposited. Instead petitioners

deposited a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- on 03.12.2022. It is brought to our

notice that OTS was sanctioned on 13.10.2022 for a sum of Rs.38 lakhs

and rest of the amount due i.e. Rs.34,20,000/- was to be deposited by

petitioners within 60 days by 15.12.2022. The amount was not

deposited. Furthermore, cheque of Rs. 34,20,000/- presented by the

petitioners on 17.04.2023 was dishonoured and petitioners are now

facing proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It

is submitted that total outstanding amount due as on date is

approximately Rs.92 lakhs.

4. The above factual position is not denied by learned counsel

for the petitioners who submits that more time should be granted to the

petitioners to deposit the amount in terms of the OTS.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find no

merit whatsoever in the submission as raised by learned counsel for the

petitioners, hence rejected. It is a settled position that there can be no

direction to the bank to enter into a particular OTS and neither can there

be a direction for extending the period for deposit of the amount in terms

of OTS. Gainful reference in this regard, can be made to the judgments

of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs. Arvindra

Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 2022 AIR (SC) 5517 and The Bijnor Urban

Cooperative Bank Limited, Bijnor and others Vs. Meenal Agarwal

and others, 2022 AIR (SC) 56.

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115231-DB

CWP-21298-2022 :3: 2023:PHHC:115231-DB

6. It is further to be noticed that petitioners have an efficacious

remedy for challenging the proceedings under SARFAESI Act initiated

against them by the respondent. Gainful reference in this regard, can be

made to judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s South Indian

bank Ltd. and others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and another, 2023(2)

RCR (Civil) 771, Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon and

others, 2010(8) SCC 110 and Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B.

Sreenivasulu and others, 2023(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 34.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to point out

any exceptional or extraordinary circumstance which calls for

interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226 of

the Constitution of India.

8. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the

petitioners to avail the statutory remedy available to them in accordance

with law. Needless to say it is always open to the parties to arrive at a

mutually acceptable resolution. There is no expression of opinion on the

merits of the matter.

9. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of

accordingly.

(LISA GILL) JUDGE

(RITU TAGORE) JUDGE

01.09.2023 Rimpal Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115231-DB

3 of 3