Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amandeep Singh Sandhu And Another vs State Of Haryana And Others on 8 April, 2024
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047107-DB
1
CWP-28254-2023
112 2024:PHHC:047107-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-28254-2023
Date of Decision: April 08, 2024
AMANDEEP SINGH SANDHU AND ANOTHER ...... Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present: Mr. Ashish Bakshi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Senior DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Harsh Chopra, Advocate for respondent No.3.
****
LISA GILL, J.
1. Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside proceedings under
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short - 'SARFAESI Act') initiated against
petitioners.
2. It is a matter of record that petitioners availed of loan facility from
respondent No. 3 in June, 2017. Petitioners' loan account was declared Non
Performing Asset (NPA) on 12.05.2022 on account of financial indiscipline for
reasons as may be. Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act was issued on
21.06.2022 and notice under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act was issued on
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047107-DB
CWP-28254-2023
07.11.2022. Order dated 21.09.2023 under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act was
passed by District Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar. It is submitted that proceedings
under SARFAESI Act have been undertaken illegally and in complete violation
of applicable provisions. Description of property is also incorrect. It is, thus,
prayed that this writ petition be allowed.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 raises objection regarding
entertainability of this petition itself while submitting that action has been taken
in complete consonance with applicable provisions. Dismissal of writ petition is
sought.
4. It is recorded in order dated 28.02.2024 passed in this writ petition
that as per instructions received by learned counsel for respondent No. 3, in case
petitioners deposit amount of Rs.7 lakhs within first week of March, 2024, their
account can be regularized/made standard subject to further undertaking that
they would deposit the amount as and when it fall due. Learned counsel for
respondent No. 3 points out that said amount has not be deposited by petitioners.
5. Apart from the fact that petitioners have an effective alternate
statutory remedy under SARFAESI Act, relief claimed is admittedly qua
respondent, 'Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Limited', which is a private
Housing Financial (Non-banking) institution, therefore, no ground, in any case,
is made out for interference in the present writ petition, in any case. Gainful
reference in this regard can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme
Court in Phoenix ARC Private Limited versus Vishwa Bharti Vidya Mandir
and others, 2022 (1) RCR (Civil) 888, wherein it has been held as under:-
" Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that a writ petition
against the private financial institution - ARC - appellant herein
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proposed
action/actions under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act can be
said to be not maintainable. In the present case, the ARC proposed
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:047107-DB
CWP-28254-2023
to take action/actions under the SARFAESI Act to recover the
borrowed amount as a secured creditor. The ARC as such cannot be
said to be performing public functions which are normally expected
to be performed by the State authorities. During the course of a
commercial transaction and under the contract, the bank/ARC lent
the money to the borrowers herein and therefore the said activity of
the bank/ARC cannot be said to be as performing a public function
which is normally expected to be performed by the State authorities.
If proceedings are initiated under the SARFAESI Act and/or any
proposed action is to be taken and the borrower is aggrieved by any
of the actions of the private bank/bank/ARC, borrower has to avail
the remedy under the SARFAESI Act and no writ petition would lie
and/or is maintainable and/or entertainable. Therefore, decisions of
this Court in the cases of Praga Tools Corporation v. Shri C.A.
Imanual, (1969) 1 SCC 585 and Ramesh Ahluwalia v. State of
Punjab, (2012) 12 SCC 331 relied upon by the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the borrowers are not of any assistance to the
borrowers."
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, this writ
petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioners to avail statutory
remedy/remedies available to them in accordance with law.
7. It is clarified that there is no expression of opinion on the merits of
the case.
(LISA GILL)
JUDGE
(AMARJOT BHATTI)
April 08, 2024 JUDGE
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
