Rajasthan High Court
Mrs. Harsh Jain W/O Mr. Jatin vs State Bank Of India on 30 June, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2604/2020
1. Mrs. Harsh Jain W/o Mr. Jatin, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
21, Tater Bhawan, Near Panch Mukha Hanuman Mandir,
Rani Bazar, Industrial Area, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
2. Master Divyam Jain S/o (Late) Mr. Jatin Jain, Aged About
10 Years, Through Natural Guardian And Mother Mrs.
Harsh Jain R/o 21, Tater Bhawan, Near Panch Mukha
Hanuman Mandir, Rani Bazar, Industrial Area, Bikaner
(Rajasthan).
3. Mrs. Anju Jain W/o Mr. Arun Jain, Aged About 53 Years,
Mother Of (Late) Mr. Jatin Jain R/o 21, Tater Bhawan,
Near Panch Mukha Hanuman Mandir, Rani Bazar,
Industrial Area, Bikaner (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Bank Of India, Corporate Office At - Madam Cama
Road, State Bank Bhawan, Mumbai (Maharashtra)
400021. Local Head Office At - Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur-302005. Branch Office At - Bio Hospital Road,
Bikaner (Rajasthan), Through Its Chief Manager.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Having Its
Registered And Head Office At Panchshakti Circle,
Sadulganj, Bikaner-334003 (Rajasthan) Through
Divisional Manager.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
30/06/2022
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed assailing the legality and validity of the
judgement dated 08.08.2019 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal,
(2 of 3) [CW-2604/2020]
Jaipur (for brevity, "the DRT") whereby, the Original Application
No.159/2012 filed by the respondent-Bank under Section 19 of
the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for brevity, "the
Act of 1993"), has been allowed.
With regard to the maintainability of the writ petition against
an order of the DRT despite availability of the statutory remedy of
appeal under Section 20 of the Act of 1993, learned counsel for
the petitioners, drawing attention of this Court towards Section 18
of the Act, submitted that supervisory jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not barred and
hence, the writ petition is maintainable. He, in this regard, relied
upon a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court of India in case of Union
of India & Ors. Vs. Debts Recovery Tribunal Bar Association
and Anr.; (2013) 2 SCC 574.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank
submitted that in view of availability of remedy of statutory appeal
against the judgement impugned, the writ petition is not
maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on this count alone.
She further submitted that even otherwise also, the petitioners
have not approached this Court with clean hands as they have
furnished an undertaking before the DRT to repay the entire loan
amount which has been concealed in the writ petition. She, in
support of her submissions, relied upon judgements of Hon'ble
Apex Court of India in cases of Punjab National Bank Vs. O.C.
Krishnan & Ors.; (2001) 6 SCC 569 & State Bank of India
Vs. Allied Chemical Laboratories & Anr.; (2006) 9 SCC 252
and a judgement of this Court dated 07.05.2022 in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.6810/2022 in case of Heer Singh Vs. State
Bank Of India & Ors.
(3 of 3) [CW-2604/2020]
Heard. Considered.
Indisputably, the petitioners have an alternative remedy of
statutory appeal under Section 20 of the Act of 1993 against the
judgement dated 08.08.2019, the subject matter of challenge in
the writ petition. There is not a whisper of averment in the memo
of writ petition as to why the petitioners have not availed the
remedy of appeal except that the petitioners are not liable to pay
any amount. However, during the course of submission, learned
counsel for the petitioners admitted that being legal heirs of the
deceased-borrower, proceedings could have been instituted by the
respondent-Bank against them under Section 19 of the Act of
1993.
In view thereof, in the backdrop of judgements of Hon'ble
Apex Court of India in the cases of Punjab National Bank
(supra) & State Bank of India (supra) and order of this Court in
case of Heer Singh (supra), this Court is not inclined to entertain
this writ petition in view of availability of alternative remedy of
statutory appeal to the petitioners.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
The application No.1/2022 stands disposed of accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
PRAGATI/s-152
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
