Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Suraj Cattle Feed vs State Bank Of India And Other on 29 April, 2024
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058279-DB
2024:PHHC:058279-DB
118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-2769-2024
Date of Decision: April 29, 2024
M/S SURAJ CATTLE FEED ..... Petitioner
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHER ..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present: Mr. Naveen Kumar, Advocate for
Mr. Imran Farooqi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate for respondent No. 1 (through VC).
****
LISA GILL, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 07.11.2023
(Annexure P3) under Section 14 of Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short -
'SARFAESI Act') passed by learned Additional District Magistrate, Malerkotla.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that proceedings under
SARFAESI Act initiated against petitioner are absolutely illegally, arbitrary and
in complete violation of applicable provisions of law. Moreover, petitioner has
also submitted representation/proposal dated 12.12.2023 (Annexure P4) before
respondent - Bank seeking settlement. Petitioner has requested respondent -
bank to revoke excessive charges and penalties imposed. It is submitted that
before his proposal/representation is decided, no action should be taken under
SARFAESI Act. It is, thus, prayed that this petition be allowed.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058279-DB
3. 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. 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 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 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
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:058279-DB
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."
4. Learned counsel for petitioner is unable to point out any
extraordinary and exceptional circumstance which calls for interference by this
Court. All arguments, as raised in the writ petition, are very well within the
realm of consideration by learned Tribunal.
5. Argument raised by learned counsel for petitioner that proceedings
under SARFAESI Act should be kept in abeyance till decision upon petitioner's
request for settlement, is devoid of merit because it is always open to parties to
arrive at any mutually acceptable settlement. Pendency or otherwise of writ
petition, in any case, would be irrelevant for said purpose.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, this writ
petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to avail statutory remedy(ies) as
may be available to it in accordance with law. It is always open to parties to
arrive at any mutually acceptable settlement.
7. There is no expression of opinion on the merits of matter.
(LISA GILL)
JUDGE
(AMARJOT BHATTI)
April 29, 2024 JUDGE
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
