Rajasthan High Court
Ram Lal Poonia S/O Shri Sukh Ram ... vs Chief Manager on 7 January, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10007/2021
Ram Lal Poonia S/o Shri Sukh Ram Poonia, Aged About 44 Years,
R/o Block-A, Kalyanpuri, Near Right Future Academy, Sanganer
Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank Head Office At 5Th
Floor, West Wing, Plot No. 4, Sector-10, Dwarka, New
Delhi-110075
2. Punjab National Bank, Sikar, Kotwali Road Sikar Through
Its Branch Manager.
3. Omprakash Bendha S/o Shri Kanaram Bendha, R/o Ward
No. 42, Veer Tejaji Colony, Nawalgarh Road Sikar
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : None.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dhurva Rathore, through VC.
Mr. Hari Barath, through VC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
07/01/2022
On 05.01.2022 this court passed the following order:-
"At the request of counsel for the petitioner,
list on 07.01.2022.
Interim order to continue till next date."
Today, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is
having alternative remedy against the possession notice and sale
notice issued by the respondents, before the Debts Recovery
Tribunal by filing of the application under the Securitisation and
(2 of 3) [CW-10007/2021]
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002.
In support of the contention counsel for the respondents
relied upon the judgment passed by 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 where in
para Nos. 2 to 4, it has been 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
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."
(3 of 3) [CW-10007/2021]
In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matters of ICICI Bank Ltd. and Ors. (supra), this
writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner is having alternative
statutory remedy before the DRT.
All the pending applications stand disposed of.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
MG/234
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
