M/S Deeksha Iron Industries Pvt. ... vs Chief Manager Bank Of Baroda
2022 Latest Caselaw 109 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 109 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 5 January, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

M/S Deeksha Iron Industries Pvt. ... vs Chief Manager Bank Of Baroda on 5 January, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12089/2021

1.     M/s Deeksha Iron Industries Pvt. Ltd, 37 Pareek College
       Road, Banipark Jaipur-302016 Through Its Authorized
       Signatory/director Shri Dheeraj Garg.
2.     Shri Dheeraj Garg S/o Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, 37
       Pareek College Road, Banipark Jaipur-302016
3.     Shri Neeraj Garg S/o Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, 37
       Pareek College Road, Banipark Jaipur-302016
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
1.     Chief Manager Bank Of Baroda, B 23, Tonk Rd, Shreeji
       Nagar, Vasundhara Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan
       302018
2.     Authorized Officer, Bank Of Baroda, Dausa Branch, Agra
       Road, Dausa-District, Rajasthan Pincode-303303
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Garg, through VC. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Madhav Mitra, through VC.

Mr. Aditya Kiran Mathur, through VC.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

05/01/2022

Heard on the application for impleading the applicant as

party respondent in the writ petition as he is a bona-fide

purchaser of the property in dispute.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed.

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

(2 of 3) [CW-12089/2021]

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.

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 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

(3 of 3) [CW-12089/2021]

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."

In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the matter of ICICI Bank (supra), this writ petition

deserve to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this writ petition is 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.