Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pooja Jain vs Authorized Officer, Indian Overseas ... on 25 April, 2024
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057343-DB
1
CWP-13632-2022 (O&M)
2024:PHHC:057343-DB
237 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-13632-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: April 25, 2024
Pooja Jain ..... Petitioner
Versus
Authorized Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and others
..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present: Mr. Parunjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.V. Mehra, Advocate for respondent - Bank.
****
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 the
petitioner.
2. It is submitted that petitioner runs a small Hosiery business in the
name and style of Laasani Knit Wears. She secured housing loan from
respondent - Bank, which was sanctioned on 12.05.2015. Financial indiscipline
on the part of petitioner for the reasons as may be is a matter of record, leading
to her account being declared Non Performing Asset (NPA). Learned counsel for
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057343-DB
CWP-13632-2022 (O&M)
petitioner vehemently argues that notice dated 12.03.2020 was issued under
Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act wherein the amount was declared to be NPA
w.e.f. 31.10.2019, which is opposed to the applicable Rules and Regulations.
Thereafter, notice under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act was issued on
21.09.2020, which is also in contravention of Rule 8 of SARFAESI Rules. Order
under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act was passed on 21.09.2020 (Annexure P2). It
is argued that entire proceedings initiated by respondent - Bank are in absolute
violation of provisions of SARFAESI Act and applicable Rules, thus, liable to be
set aside. Petitioner had also offered to enter into One Time Settlement but to no
avail. Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act and declaration of account
of petitioner as NPA being illegal, arbitrary and infact void, entire proceedings
are vitiated.
3. This petition has been opposed by learned counsel for respondent
No. 1 while raising plea of non entertainability of this petition itself. It is further
submitted that petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands.
Material facts have been concealed and suppressed by petitioners. It is not
disclosed that there are two other loan accounts, one obtained by M/s Laasani
Knit Wears of which petitioner is proprietor and another home loan account.
Civil Suit No. 1774 of 2020 had been filed by respondent - Bank in which
petitioner had appeared on 02.11.2021, however, after availing several
opportunities for filing written statement, she did not join proceedings thereafter
and was proceeded exparte. Civil suit was decreed on 05.08.2023. Copy thereof
is attached as Annexure R8 with reply filed on behalf of respondent - Bank. It is
submitted that proceedings undertaken against petitioner under SARFAESI Act
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057343-DB
CWP-13632-2022 (O&M)
are in complete consonance with applicable provisions. It is, thus, prayed that
this petition be dismissed.
4. We heard learned counsel for parties and have perused the file.
However, we do not find any ground whatsoever to interfere in this writ petition
in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. This is so
for the reason that SARFAESI Act is a complete code in itself providing for
specific remedies for any grievances which may arise in respect to proceedings
taken thereunder. Interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of Constitution of India in such like matters has to be minimal and
actuated only in extra-ordinary and exceptional circumstances. Reference in this
regard can be made to judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union Bank
of India v. Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010(8) SCC 110; Varimadugu
Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu and others, 2023(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 34,M/s
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) held as under:-
"13. ...... We may, however, reiterate the settled position of law on
the interference of the High Court invoking Article 226 of the
Constitution of India in commercial matters, where an effective and
efficacious alternative forum has been constituted through a statute.
xxx xxx xxx
14. A writ of certiorari is to be issued over a decision when the
Court finds that the process does not conform to the law or statute.
In other words, courts are not expected to substitute themselves with
the decision-making authority while finding fault with the process
along with the reasons assigned. Such a writ is not expected to be
issued to remedy all violations.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
15. The object and reasons behind the Act 54of 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057343-DB
CWP-13632-2022 (O&M)
manned by a legally trained mind. The Tribunal is clothed with a
wide range or 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 meaning to the expression "any person", who could
approach the Tribunal.
xxx xxx 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 petitioner is unable to point out any
extraordinary and exceptional circumstance, which calls for intervention by this
Court at this stage. All pleas, as have been raised, are well within the realm of
consideration by learned Tribunal as provided under the Act itself.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, this writ
petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to avail remedy(ies) available to
her in accordance with law.
7. There is no expression of opinion on the merits of matter.
(LISA GILL)
JUDGE
(AMARJOT BHATTI)
April 25, 2024 JUDGE
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
