Phosphate India Pvt. Ltd vs Union Bank Of India
2021 Latest Caselaw 10770 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 122/2020

IN

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.805/2020

1. Phosphate India Pvt. Ltd., 107 Ananad Plaza, University Road, Udaipur (Raj.) Through its Director Mr. Akash Goyal S/o Shri Munish Goyal.

2. Akash Goyal S/o Shri Munish Goyal, Aged About 54 Years, 168 Padmavati Complex, Mahaprayag Vihar, Bhuwana, Udaipur (Raj.).

----Appellants Versus

1. Union Bank Of India, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021.

2. Authorised Officer, Union Bank Of India, Regional Office, 446, Bhopalpura Main Road, Nr. Shastri Circle, Udaipur.

3. Branch Manager, Union Bank Of India, Branch Delhi Gate, Udaipur (Raj.).

4. District Collector Cum District Magistrate, Udaipur.

5. Shri Vikram Singh, Chief Manager, Udaipur Main Branch Delhi Gate, Udaipur (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.S. Sandhu Advocate Mr. Shreyansh Mardia Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dhanesh Saraswat Advocate

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Judgment

14/07/2021

Appellants have filed an appeal challenging the order dated

16.01.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, writ

petition filed by the appellants was dismissed.

(2 of 3) [SAW-122/2020]

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the

respondents have erred in rejecting the representation submitted

by the appellants, vide order dated 13.01.2020 (Annexure-21).

Learned counsel has further submitted that the appellants have

been declared as Non-Performing-Assets (NPA) without following

the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India as well as by

the Bank itself. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has

placed reliance upon the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High

Court at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.16490 of 2018 titled

as M/s. Amar Alloys Private Limited(Regd.) Vs. State Bank

of India decided on 17.05.2019.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has

opposed the appeal and has submitted, that in-fact, this appeal

has been rendered infructuous as the appellants have already

availed alternative remedy available to them under the

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and

Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter to be

referred as 'Act of 2002') by filing an appeal under Section 17 of

the Act of 2002.

Appellants had preferred the writ petition challenging the

order dated 13.01.2020 (Annexure-21), whereby, the respondent-

bank had rejected the appellants' proposal/representation.

Appellants had also challenged the order dated 01.11.2019 passed

by the District Collector, Udaipur under Section 14 of the Act of

2002 ordering that possession of the secured assets of the

appellants be taken.

Learned Single Judge vide order dated 16.01.2020

dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants on the ground

that efficacious remedy of appeal qua action of respondents was

(3 of 3) [SAW-122/2020]

available to the appellants and no case for bypassing the

alternative remedy was made out.

During the pendency of the appeal, appellants have

admittedly taken re-course to alternate remedy by filing an appeal

before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act of

2002. Since the appellants have already taken re-course to the

alternate remedy, we are of the opinion, that no ground for

interference by this Court is made out.

In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the

judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants fails to

advance the case of the appellants.

Dismissed.

Second stay application also stands disposed of.

                                    (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J                                        (SABINA),J


                                    22-Ravi Kh/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)