Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Gurdial Singh And Sons And Another vs Deputy Commissioner Cum Deputy ... on 18 March, 2024
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038649-DB
2024:PHHC:038649-DB
117 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-11431-2023
Date of Decision: March 18, 2024
M/S GURDIAL SINGH AND SONS AND ANOTHER ..... Petitioners
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-CUM-DEPUTY MAGISTRATE, SIRSA
AND OTHERS ..... Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE AMARJOT BHATTI
Present: Mr. Shubham Pabbi, Advocate for
Mr. Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. D.K. Singal, Advocate for respondents No. 4 and 5.
****
LISA GILL, J.
1. Prayer in this petition is for setting aside proceedings under
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 initiated against the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners are ready
and willing to deposit the amount due. Request had been made for considering
the case of petitioners for One Time Settlement but to no avail. It had been
informed by learned counsel for respondent - Bank on 26.02.2024 that sum of
Rs.10,15,897/- was due from petitioners as on that date. Learned counsel for
petitioners had sought time to seek instructions.
3. Today learned counsel for petitioners submits that above is not the
amount, which is due and calculations made by respondent are absolutely
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038649-DB
incorrect. Detailed account statement has not been provided to petitioners, who
are not liable to deposit the said amount. Arguments were thus heard.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that proceedings under
SARFAESI Act have been undertaken in an illegal and arbitrary manner in
violation of applicable rules and circulars issued by RBI, thus this writ petition
should be allowed.
5. After hearing learned counsel for parties, we do not find any ground
to interfere in this writ petition in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of
Constitution of India. It is a settled position 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
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038649-DB
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 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."
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to point out any
exceptional or extraordinary circumstance, which calls for interference by this
Court at this stage.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the matter, this writ
petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioners to avail remedy(ies) available to
them in accordance with law. Needless to say, detailed account statement be
supplied to petitioners by respondent - Bank expeditiously and positively within
fifteen days.
8. It is clarified that there is no expression of opinion on the merits of the
matter and that parties are always at liberty to arrive at a mutually acceptable
settlement.
(LISA GILL)
JUDGE
(AMARJOT BHATTI)
March 18, 2024 JUDGE
Rts Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
