Mr Navrang Lal Kumawat S/O Shri ... vs Union Bank Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 7080 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13281/2021

1.       Mr    Navrang       Lal    Kumawat          S/o        Shri    Durga   Prasad
         Kumawat, R/o- Opp. Sbi Branch, Ward No. 19, Reengas,
         Sikar, Rajasthan-332404
2.       Mr    Dinesh     Kumar        Kumawat            S/o    Shri    Nourang    Lal
         Kumawat, R/o- Opp. Sbi Branch, Ward No. 19, Reengas,
         Sikar, Rajasthan-332404
3.       M/s Navarng Lal And Sons Fruit Company, Through Its
         Proprietor Mr Navrang Lal Kumawat S/o Shri Durga
         Prasad Kumawat, R/o- Opp. Sbi Branch, Ward No. 19,
         Reengas, Sikar, Rajasthan-332404.
                                                                         ----Petitioners
                                       Versus
1.       Union Bank Of India, Through Its Authorized Officer,
         Branch Manager Reengus Branch Opp. Dhayal Hospital,
         Main Road, Po Reengus, Reengas, Sikar, Rajasthan-
         332404.
2.       Union Bank Of India, Through Its Regional Manager,
         Regional Office, Kisan Bhavan, 101 A 101 B And 102,
         Tonk Rd, Lalkothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302015.
                                                                       ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Sanwar Mal
For Respondent(s)            :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

01/12/2021

Admittedly, the petitioners are having alternative remedy of

appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 against the possession

notice dated 05.10.2021.

(2 of 4) [CW-13281/2021]

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of

Travancore and anr. Vs. Mathew K.C. reported in (2018) 3

SCC 85, has held as under:-

"9. Even prior to the SARFAESI Act, considering the alternate remedy available under the DRT Act it was held in Punjab National Bank Vs. O.C. Krishnan and others, (2001) 6 SCC 569, that :-

"6. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is a hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Section 20 and this fast-track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless, when there is an alternative remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High Court should not have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act."

10. In Satyawati Tandon (supra), the High Court had restrained further proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Act. Upon a detailed consideration of the statutory scheme under the SARFAESI Act, the availability of remedy to the aggrieved under Section 17 before the Tribunal and the appellate remedy under Section 18 before the Appellate Tribunal, the object and purpose of the legislation, it was observed that a writ petition ought not to be entertained in view of the alternate statutory remedy available holding :-

"43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other

(3 of 4) [CW-13281/2021]

types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi- judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.

55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICICI Bank

Ltd. and Ors. vs. Umakanta Mohapatra and Ors. reported in

(2019) 13 SCC 497 in para Nos. 2 to 4, has held as under:-

"2. Despite several judgments of this Court, including a judgment by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha, as recently as on 30.01.2018, in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Anr. v. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85, the High Courts continue to entertain matters which arise under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), and keep granting interim orders in favour of persons who are Non- Performing Assets (NPAs).

3. The writ petition itself was not maintainable, as a result of which, in view of our recent judgment, which has followed earlier judgments of this Court, held as follows:- (SSC p.94, para 17)

17. We cannot help but disapprove the approach of the High Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy

(4 of 4) [CW-13281/2021]

Engineering Works (P) Ltd., observing: (SCC p. 463, para 32) "32. When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this tendency stops."

4. The writ petition, in this case, being not maintainable, obviously, all orders passed must perish, including the impugned order, which is set aside."

In that view of the matter, this writ petition is dismissed in

view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

matters of State Bank of Travancore and anr. (supra) and

ICICI Bank Ltd. and Ors. (supra), as the petitioners are having

alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the DRT.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

Upendra/129

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)