Rajasthan High Court
Navratan Fashions And Agencies ... vs Au Small Finance Bank Limited on 20 October, 2021
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8186/2021
Navratan Fashions And Agencies Private Limited, Having
Registered Address At 142, Milap Nagar Tonk Road Jaipur Rj
302015 In Through Its Authorised Signatory And Director Vikas
Dixit
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Previously Known As Au
Financers (India) Limited Having Registered Office At 19-
A, Dhuleshwar Garden, Ajmer Road, Jaipur-302001,
Rajasthan India.
2. Reserve Bank Of India, Through Regional Director
Rajasthan Having Regional Office At Rambagh Circle, Tonk
Road Jaipur-302 004, India
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8583/2021
Pushpgiri Infrastructure Private Limited, Having Registered
Address At 142, Milap Nagar Tonk Road Jaipur Rj 302015 In
Through Its Authorised Signatory And Director Vikas Dixit
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Previously Known As Au
Financers (India) Limited Having Registered Office At 19-
A, Dhuleshwar Garden, Ajmer Road, Jaipur-302001,
Rajasthan India.
2. Reserve Bank Of India, Through Regional Director
Rajasthan Having Regional Office At Rambagh Circle, Tonk
Road Jaipur-302 004, India
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prateek Kedawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
(D.B. SAW/905/2021 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(2 of 3) [CW-8186/2021]
Order
20/10/2021
1. As the question of law raised in both the writ petitions is the
same, therefore with consent of the parties, these petitions have
been heard together and are being decided by the present order.
2. The prayer made in the writ petition No. 8583/2021 reads as
under:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your
lordship may graciously be pleased to:-
A. To declare the entire impugned action of the
Respondents, the Notice u/s 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act
dated 06.04.2021 to be arbitrary, unlawful and
unconstitutional and set aside.
B. To declare the entire impugned action of the
Respondents, the set aside Notice u/s 13(4) of
SARFAESI Act dated 12.07.2021 to be arbitrary,
unlawful and unconstitutional and set aside.
C. To declare the entire impugned action of the
Respondents, the set aside Notice u/s 13(8) of
SARFAESI Act dated 17.07.2021 to be arbitrary,
unlawful and unconstitutional and set aside.
D. To declare and set aside the entire action initiated by
the Respondents under the SARFAESI Actto be illegal,
perverse, unconstitutional, and void ab initio;
E. call for the entire record of proceedings from the
respondents
F. To issue any other writ, order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court may deem fir and proper under the facts
circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice".
3. Admittedly, the petitioners are having alternative remedy of
filing application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section
17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 against the notice
issued by the respondent-banks to the petitioners under Section
13(4) of the Act, 2002.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the matter
under the Act of 2002, in a judgment rendered in the case of
ICICI Bank & Ors. Vs. Umakanta Mohapatra & Ors. reported in
(2019) 13 Supreme Court Cases 497, has held as under;
"1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. Despite several judgments of this Court, including a judgment
by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha, J. as recently as on 30.01.2018, in
State Bank of Travancore and Anr. vs. Mathew K.C., the High Courts
(D.B. SAW/905/2021 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(3 of 3) [CW-8186/2021]
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:- (SCC 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. vs.
Prem Heavy 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.
5. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending
applications, if any, shall stand disposed of."
5. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of ICICI Bank (supra), these writ petitions
deserve to be dismissed.
6. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. However, the
petitioners are at liberty to file application before the Debts
Recovery Tribunal with regard to their grievances taking all the
legal objections before the Tribunal.
7. All the pending applications stand disposed of.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
CHETNA BEHRANI /120-121
(D.B. SAW/905/2021 has been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
