Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 35 (RAJ)

Umesh Kumar Gupta v. Union Bank Of India

2022-01-05

INDERJEET SINGH

body2022
ORDER 1. As the question of law raised in these writ petitions is the same, therefore with consent of the parties, these petitions have been heard together and are being decided by the present order. 2. 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 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. 3. 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 Sin ha, 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 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. 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. 5. The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of." 4. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ICICI Bank (supra), these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed. 5. Accordingly, these writ petitions are 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. 6. All the pending applications stand disposed of.