Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Doaba Khalsa Trust vs State Bank Of India on 9 January, 2024
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
SUNIL
CWP No.6953 of 2021 (O&M) -1-
2024:PHHC:002530-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.6953 of 2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 09.01.2024
M/s. Doaba Khalsa Trust aa... Petitioner(s)
Versus
ICICI Bank ee Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present: Mr. V.K. Sachdeva, Advocate
for petitioner.
Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate
for respondent-Bank.
He 2 ie 2
LISA GILL, J.
1. Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside communication
dated 09.03.2021 (Annexure P-1), issued by respondent-Bank, rejecting
petitioner's representation dated 01.03.2021 (Annexure P-2) seeking
withdrawal of proceedings under Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter
referred to as the SARFAESI Act), initiated against it.
2. It is prayed that proceedings under SARFAESI Act initiated
against petitioner including notice dated 08.07.2020 (Annexure P-3) under
Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act) and notice dated 17.12.2020 (Annexure P-
6) under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, being in contravention of Section
314) of SARFAESI Act, should be withdrawn. It is the case of petitioner that
proceedings under SARFAESI Act have been incorrectly initiated against it
for recovery of a sum of 721.16 crores (as due on 08.07.2020), which is only
17.8% i.e. less than 20% of total amount.
2024.01.22 14:33
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
SUNIL
3. This figure has been disputed by respondent-Bank in the written
statement filed on its behalf. Amount due, it is submitted, is much more
than 20% of the principal amount and interest thereon. Details of amount
statedly due is duly mentioned in written statement. Learned counsel for
respondent-Bank has also raised an objection regarding entertainability of
this writ petition itself in view of specific remedies provided for any
grievance, which may arise on account of proceedings undertaken under
SARFAESI Act.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner fairly states that keeping in view
judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India vs.
Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010(8) SCC 110, Varimadugu Obi Reddy v.
B. Sreenivasulu and others, 2023(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 34 and M4 South
Indian Bank Ltd. and others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and another,
2023(2) RCR (Civil) 771, petitioner may be permitted to withdraw this writ
petition with liberty to avail remedy(ies) available to it in accordance with
law while raising all available pleas including the issues as have been raised
in this writ petition. It is, however, submitted that interim order granted in
favour of petitioner on 25.03.2021, be directed to continue to enable
petitioner to avail appropriate remedy. It is further submitted that various
Demand Drafts for a sum of %2,00,00,000/- (two crores), deposited by
petitioner in compliance of order dated 29.05.2023, passed by co-ordinate
Bench in this writ petition, which are lying deposited in the form of FDRs
with learned Registrar General of this Court, be returned to petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 does not raise any
objection to return of said amount, which is lying deposited with learned
Registrar General of this Court and continuance of interim protection for a
limited period.
2024.01.22 14:33
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as above, this writ
petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to petitioner to avail the
remedy(ies) available to it in accordance with law. As interim order granted
to petitioner on 25.03.2021 has continued till date, same shall enure for a
period of twenty (20) days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this
order, in order to enable petitioner to avail appropriate remedy as may be
available to it in accordance with law. In case _ appropriate
application/petition is filed by petitioner accompanied with requisite
application(s), question of continuance or otherwise of interim order in
favour of petitioner would be in the realm of consideration of appropriate
forum in accordance with law without being influenced by any order(s),
which may have been passed in this writ petition. It is clarified that interim
order shall not enure after the period of aforesaid twenty (20) days in the
absence of appropriate order by competent authority/Tribunal in accordance
with law. It is further directed that amount of %2,00,00,000/-, which stands
deposited with learned Registrar General of this Court, in the form of FDRs,
in compliance of order dated 29.05.2023, be returned to petitioner/its
authorized representative qua adequate proof of identity.
7. It is clarified that there is no expression of opinion on the merits
of matter and the same would be considered by appropriate forum in
accordance with law without being influenced by any order, which may have
been passed in this writ petition.
(LISA GILL)
JUDGE
(AMARJOT BHATTI)
09.01.2024 JUDGE
Sunil
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
SUNIL
2024.01.22 14:33
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
