Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 198 (HP)

Santosh Sharma v. ICICI Bank Ltd.

2013-03-25

R.B.Misra, V.K.Sharma

body2013
JUDGMENT R.B. Misra, ACJ. (Oral). The petition has been filed mainly for the following prayers: i) That the writ of certiorari may kindly be issued against the respondents, quashing the Annexure P-6. ii) That the writ of mandamus may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioners directing the respondent bank for making the reschedulement of the outstanding loan dues with the petitioner No. 1. iii) That the respondent Bank may be directed to settle the outstanding loan dues of the petitioner No. 1 under one time settlement guide lines framed by the Reserve Bank of India or under the guide lines of the respondent Bank, if framed by it. iv) That the respondent bank may be directed to allow sufficient time to the petitioners so that they may arrange the amount for clearing the outstanding loan dues (after allowing rebate/concession in the interest and by waiving of the penalties) or permission may be allowed to the petitioner No. 2 to sell out some portion of his building to satisfy the outstanding loan liability of the respondent bank. 2. Annexure P-6/order dated 16.02.2013, passed by the District Magistrate, District Sirmaur at Nahan, H.P., is under challenge and the petitioners have prayed for quashing the same. It appears that the petitioners have taken loan from ICICI Bank and the same has not been deposited by them. The outstanding amount of loan as on 03.12.2012, was Rs.6,99,579/- (six lac ninety nine thousand five hundred seventy nine), for which an application has been moved by the ICICI Bank under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( in short ‘the Act’). The copies of the application have been served to the learned counsel for the respondents under Section 13(2) of the ‘Act’. 3. The District Magistrate by way of above detailed impugned order, Annexure P-6, above has directed to take into possession the properties and assets alongwith documents belonging to the petitioners. The copies of the application have been served to the learned counsel for the respondents under Section 13(2) of the ‘Act’. 3. The District Magistrate by way of above detailed impugned order, Annexure P-6, above has directed to take into possession the properties and assets alongwith documents belonging to the petitioners. The learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that provisions of alternative remedies are availed under the ‘Act’, more specifically, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others vs. (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 110, this Court is generously slow to give indulgence in such recovery matters while exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Our attention has been invited to paragraph 55 of the judgment (supra). For convenience paragraph 55 is quoted below: “55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.” 4. Similar assertions have been made by the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of respondents No. 3 to 5. 5. In the facts and circumstances, we are not going into the controversy that what is the jurisdictional limit of the Debt Recovery Tribunal and we are also not making any comment on the merits of the case. In our considered view, the prayer made by the petitioners cannot be granted and this Court cannot compel to issue writ of mandamus to respondents to settle the matter and make rescheduling of the outstanding loan amount or fix installments or granting time for payment of dues as is up to the private respondents to consider the claim of the writ petitioners and to do the needful if the petitioners approach to the ICICI Bank/respondents. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, as such the writ petition is dismissed. 7. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not exercising its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, as such the writ petition is dismissed. 7. The petition, so also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms.