Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lokesh Singh vs Housing Development Finance ... on 3 May, 2024
Author: Lisa Gill
Bench: Lisa Gill
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061603-DB
CWP-5318-2021 1 2024:PHHC:061603-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
203 CWP-5318-2021
Date of Decision: 03.05.2024
LOKESH SINGH
... Petitioner
VERSUS
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE
CORPORATION LIMITED AND ANR
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE
Present: Mr. Rahul Rana, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate with
Ms. Maninee, Advocate for
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Jawahar Narang, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
*****
LISA GILL, J.(Oral)
1. Prayer in this writ petition is for quashing impugned
notice(s) dated 01.11.2018, 11.06.2019, 06.08.2020, 01.09.2020 and
25.02.2021 (Annexures P-11 to P-14 and P-17) issued under
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement
of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act), 2002 Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that marriage
between the petitioner and respondent No.2 was solemnized in the year
2011. However, due to differences between them divorce was sought and
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061603-DB
CWP-5318-2021 2 2024:PHHC:061603-DB
granted on 04.05.2017. It is submitted that petitioner and respondent
No.2 during subsistence of their marriage had availed of housing loan
facility from respondent non-Banking Financial Housing Corporation
for purchase of property in question which was kept as collateral.
Installments were regularly deposited by the petitioner on his own till
the month of March 2020. Admittedly, financial indiscipline did occur
for various reasons, including matrimonial dispute between the
petitioner and respondent No.2. Account(s) were declared NPA on
31.01.2019, notice under Section 13(2) was issued on 04.04.2019 and
notice(s) under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act were issued on
11.06.2019 (Annexure P-12) and 06.08.2020 (Annexure P-13)
respectively. Order under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act was passed on
10.11.2020. Proceedings under SARFAESI Act have been challenged in
this writ petition on various grounds including non-compliance of
applicable positions of law. Petitioner, it is contended had a ready buyer
but respondent No.1-financial institution was not coming forward for
any kind of settlement. It is thus prayed that this writ petition be
allowed.
3. Learned counsel for respondents has opposed this writ
petition firstly raising the question of entertainability of this writ petition
itself. It is further submitted that proceedings undertaken under
SARFAESI Act are in complete consonance with the provisions thereof.
All allegations of contravention or violation of applicable rules are
denied being factually incorrect. Learned counsel for respondents
submits that at the time of issuance of notice of motion on 05.03.2021, it
was projected before the Court that petitioner has a buyer who is ready
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061603-DB
CWP-5318-2021 3 2024:PHHC:061603-DB
to purchase the property in question for a sum of Rs.83 lakhs however,
till date, no such purchaser has come before respondent No.1 and neither
has any proposal been set forth by petitioner who is enjoying the interim
order since March 2021. The total outstanding amount as on date is
Rs.40,12,474/-. Neither petitioner nor respondent No.2 have deposited
any amount to discharge their liability. It is thus prayed that this writ
petition be dismissed.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
case file.
5. Availing of financial facility by petitioner, subsequent
financial indiscipline for reasons as the case may be leading to initiation
of proceedings under SARFAESI Act are a matter of record. In the
given factual matrix,we do not find any ground whatsoever to interfere
in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India at
this stage. Gainful reference in this regard, can be made to the
judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v.
Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010(8) SCC 110 and 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) while reiterating its earlier judgments
held that where an alternate efficacious remedy is available to the
litigant before a Forum constituted under a statute, interference by the
High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution
of India should be restricted to exceptional cases. It was held as under:-
"15. The object and reasons behind the Act 54 of
2002 are very clear as observed by this Court in
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061603-DB
CWP-5318-2021 4 2024:PHHC:061603-DB
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 of
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
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. Furthermore, it is to be noted at this stage that relief claimed
in this writ petition is qua a private non-Banking Financial Institution,
therefore, in any case, no ground is made out for entertaining this writ
petition. Gainful reference in this respect can be made to judgement of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Phoenix ARC Private Limited Vs.
Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and others, 2022 (5) SCC 345.
7. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:061603-DB
CWP-5318-2021 5 2024:PHHC:061603-DB
petitioner and respondent No.2 to avail the remedy(ies) as available to
them in accordance with law qua proceedings under SARFAESI Act
besides any grievance inter se. There is no expression of opinion on the
merits of the matter.
8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(LISA GILL)
JUDGE
(RITU TAGORE)
JUDGE
03.05.2024
Rimpal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
