Punjab National Bank vs M/S Dsr Infra
2022 Latest Caselaw 6572 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6572 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 12 October, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

Punjab National Bank vs M/S Dsr Infra on 12 October, 2022

Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14294/2022

Punjab National Bank, Its Zonal Office At 2, Nehru Place, Tonk
Road, Jaipur Rajasthan, 302015 Through Its Authorised Office
And Branch Office At Plot No. 802, Angira Darpan, First Floor,
Chopasni    Road,   Jodhpur,        Rajasthan         And       Presently   Acting
Through Circle Sastra Centre Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
M/s DSR Infra, Having Its Office At Plot No. 53, Nawal Niwas,
Golimar Garden, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) 302001 Through
Its Sole Proprietor Shri Devendra Singh Ratnawat.
                                                                  ----Respondent

Connected with

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14295/2022

Punjab National Bank, Its Zonal Office At 2, Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur Rajasthan, 302015 Through Its Authorised Office And Branch Office At Mid-Corporate Centre, Jaipur-2, Presently Acting Through Circle Sastra Centre, Jaipur-Ajmer, Nehru Place Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus M/s DSR Infra, Having Its Office At Plot No. 53, Nawal Niwas, Golimar Garden, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur (Raj.) 302001 Through Its Sole Proprietor Shri Devendra Singh Ratnawat.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Vikas Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhay Kumar Bhandari, Sr. Adv.

assisted by Dr. Ram Kumar Sharma Mr. Bhrigu Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

(2 of 5) [CW-14294/2022]

12/10/2022

Since, the issue involved in both the petitions is common,

they are being tagged.

The matters come up on applications filed by the petitioner

for early listing and hearing on the stay application. For the

reasons stated in the applications, the same are allowed and the

writ petitions are heard today itself on their merit.

By way of these writ petitions, the petitioner has assailed the

validity and legality of the order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the

learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity "the learned

Tribunal") in Securitisation Application filed by the respondent

whereby, the petitioner has been injuncted from taking any

coercive action against the respondent/applicant till 14.09.2022.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

order impugned dated 01.09.2022 has been passed by the learned

learned Tribunal without jurisdiction. Learned Senior Counsel,

relying upon an order of this Court dated 24.11.2021 passed in SB

Civil Writ Petition No.13021/2021:State of Rajasthan &

Anr. versus Ashmita (Asmita) Singh & Anr., would further

submits that no interim order could have been passed by the

learned Tribunal without supplying a copy of the application to the

respondent/caveator. With regard to availability of alternative

remedy, learned Senior Counsel submits that since the order

impugned refers an order of this Court dated 29.08.2022, the writ

petitions are maintainable. He, therefore, prays that the writ

petition be allowed and the order impugned dated 01.09.2022 be

quashed and set aside.

     Per     contra,     learned          Senior          Counsel   for    the

respondent/caveator submits that in view of                     availability of


                                         (3 of 5)                     [CW-14294/2022]

statutory remedy of appeal to the petitioner against the order

passed by the learned Tribunal, the writ petitions are not

maintainable. He, in support of his submissions, relies upon

judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 14.11.2019

passed in DB Special Appeal Writ No.971/2019: Amit Parwal

versus Bank of Baroda & Ors. and judgments of this Court

dated 01.09.2022 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition

No.4568/2020: Surbhi Mehta versus IIFL Home Finance

Ltd. & Ors., dated 20.04.2022 in SB Civil Writ Petition

No.1011/2019: Mrs. Rishu Chaudhary versus Indian

Overseas Bank & Ors. and dated 14.10.2020 passed in SB Civil

Writ Petition No.12391/2020: Smt. Sangeeta Khatri versus

Punjab national Bank. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition

be dismissed.

Heard. Considered.

This Court, vide its order dated 29.08.2022 in SB Civil Writ

Petition No.7093/2021: M/s. DSR Infra versus Punjab

National Bank and another connected matter, while permitting

the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail the

alternative remedy available under the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act, 2002 (for brevity "the Act of 2022"), extended the

interim order passed by this Court dated 12.07.2021 for a period

of two weeks with an observation that the learned Tribunal may

decide the application for interim relief, if any, without being

influenced by the order dated 12.07.2021 or its continuation.

Thereafter, in the securitisation applications filed by the M/s. DSR

Infra, the learned Tribunal has, vide impugned order dated

(4 of 5) [CW-14294/2022]

01.09.2022, directed the respondent-Bank not to take any

coercive action till 14.09.2022.

Indisputably, the order of the learned Tribunal dated

01.09.2022 is appealable under Section 18 of the Act of 2002,

which reads as under:-

"18. Appeal to Appellate Tribunal. (1) Any person aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal 1[under section 17, may prefer an appeal along with such fee, as may be prescribed] to the Appellate Tribunal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal.

[Provided that different fees may be prescribed for filing an appeal by the borrower or by the person other than the borrower:] [Provided further that no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal fifty per cent. of the amount of debt due from him, as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less:

Provided also that the Appellate Tribunal may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the amount to not less than twenty-five per cent. of debt referred to in the second proviso.]

(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the Appellate Tribunal shall, as far as may be, dispose of the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (51 of 1993) and rules made thereunder."

A Division Bench of this Court has, vide its order dated

14.11.2019 in case of Amit Parwal (supra), while dismissing the

special appeal, upheld the order passed by the learned Single

Judge dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of

(5 of 5) [CW-14294/2022]

alternative remedy of statutory appeal under Section 18 of the Act

of 2002.

A perusal of the writ petition does not reveal any reason as

to why the petitioner has not availed alternative statutory remedy

of appeal available under the Act of 2002.

In view thereof, the writ petitions are dismissed for

availability of an alternative remedy of statutory appeal to the