Punjab-Haryana High Court
Usha Devi vs Deputy Commissioner Cum District ... on 11 March, 2024
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035187-DB
2024:PHHC:035187-DB
231
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-6239-2021
Date of Decision:- 11.03.2024
Usha Devi
....Petitioner
Vs.
Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Palwal and Ors.
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present:- Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate for respondent No.4-Bank.
*****
LISA GILL, J.
1. Prayer in this writ petition is for quashing notice(s) dated
04.09.2018 (Annexure P-1), under Section 13(2), 08.03.2019 (Annexure
P-2) and 08.03.2021 (Annexure P-4) of Securitization and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act).
2. Petitioner admittedly availed of home loan facility from
respondent-Bank for construction purpose on 27.03.2015 for a sum of Rs.6
lakhs to be repaid in 240 installments. Equitable mortgage of the property
as detailed in the writ petition was created. Admittedly, there was financial
indiscipline on the part of petitioner leading to initiation of proceedings
under the SARFAESI Act by respondent-Bank.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035187-DB
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in fact
installments were being paid regularly by petitioner but in the year 2017,
petitioner was unable to deposit the same due to financial crisis faced by
her.
4. Notice(s) under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of SARFAESI Act
were issued by the respondent-Bank after declaration of petitioner's
account Non Performing Asset (NPA) which is submitted to be absolutely
illegal and arbitrary and de hors the specific provisions of law. Petitioner it
is further stated was always ready and willing to settle the account but
respondent-Bank was not agreeable for the same. It is thus prayed that this
writ petition may be allowed.
5. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank opposed this writ
petition while firstly raising an objection regarding entertainability of this
writ petition itself. It is further submitted that entire action taken against
petitioner under the SARFAESI Act is in strict consonance with provisions
thereunder. Learned counsel for respondent-Bank further submits that
petitioner has been a persistent and consistent defaulter being absolutely
irregular and erratic in deposit of the amount due. Despite opportunity
granted to petitioner for settling the account, she has not come forward.
Learned counsel for respondent-Bank submits that offers to settle her
account by way of One Time Settlement (OTS) were given even way back
in November, 2022. Offer was sent through registered post which was
refused to be accepted by petitioner. Same offer was however
communicated to petitioner by hand which was duly received by petitioner
under her signatures on 6th December, 2022. Petitioner did not come
forward to settle the matter despite offering to remain present at the office
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035187-DB
of respondent-Bank at Palwal on 11.01.2024 as is recorded in order dated
09.01.2024 passed in this writ petition. To the contrary officials of the
Bank have been making offers for settlement. The only object it is
submitted, is to delay recovery proceedings. It is thus prayed that this writ
petition may be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for parties.
7. Availing of financial credit by petitioner from respondent No.4
subsequent financial indiscipline and initiation of proceedings under the
SARFAESI Act is a matter of record. It is a settled position that
SARFAESI Act is a complete Code in itself. Specific remedies under the
Act are available to the petitioners for grievances as have been raised in
this writ petition. All such pleas and arguments are well within the realm
of consideration by the appropriate Forum provided under the Act.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a number of cases has held that interference
by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has to be minimal and in exceptional and
extraordinary circumstances. Gainful reference in this respect can be made
to judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India vs.
Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010 (8) SCC 110, and M/s South Indian
Bank Ltd. and others vs. Naveen Mathew Philip and others, 2023 (2)
R.C.R. (Civil) 771.
8. Learned counsel for petitioner is unable to point out any
extraordinary or exceptional circumstance which calls for interference at
this stage.
9. Keeping in view facts and circumstances above, this writ
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035187-DB
petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to avail statutory remedy(ies)
available to her in accordance with law.
10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of
accordingly.
(LISA GILL)
JUDGE
(AMARJOT BHATTI)
JUDGE
11.03.2024
sunil devi
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035187-DB
4 of 4
