Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1567 (AP)

Lodhi Calcium Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Canara Bank

2024-11-29

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, RAVI NATH TILHARI

body2024
JUDGMENT : RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. Heard Sri Md. Sharfuddin, learned Counsel for the petitioners appearing through virtual mode. 2. On 01.10.2024, the order was passed to post the matter on 03.10.2024. On 03.10.2024, at request of learned Counsel for the petitioners the matter was directed to be listed after three (03) weeks. On 24.10.2024 again on the request made on behalf of learned Counsel for the petitioners, the matter was posted to 21.11.2024 and on that date, at the request of learned Counsel for the petitioner, the matter was posted to 28.11.2024. 3. On 28.11.2024, the following order was passed : "At the request made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners' appearing through virtual mode, the matter is posted to 29.11.2024 to enable him to argue the matter." 4. Today, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that some settlement started during pendency of this CRP which is going on between the parties and consequently, if the matter is adjourned some settlement may be arrived. 5. From the docket orders as also the submission advanced as noted above, we are of the view that this petition was filed and the proceedings of this petition are being used for settling the matter. The petition was never argued and inspite of the order dated 28.11.2024, today also learned Counsel appearing through virtual mode seeks adjournment. The proceedings of this Court cannot be allowed to be used in such a manner. We decline the request to adjourn the matter. 6. This petition was filed challenging the order dated 30.08.2024 in IA No.2434 of 2024 in SA No.355 of 2024 pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. By the said order, interim application filed by the present petitioners in SA No.355 of 2024 to grant stay of all further proceedings of the respondent-Bank including taking possession pursuant to the possession notice dated 11.07.2024, was rejected, as the Tribunal did not find any valid reason or ground, to stall the further proceedings of the respondent-Bank for recovery of the amount. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that an amount of Rs.42 lakhs have already been paid. Be that as it may, the demand against the petitioners is about Rs.6 Crores. 8. The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 provides for the remedy against the order impugned in the CRP. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that an amount of Rs.42 lakhs have already been paid. Be that as it may, the demand against the petitioners is about Rs.6 Crores. 8. The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 provides for the remedy against the order impugned in the CRP. Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 may prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the Act. In Jagdish Singh v. Heeralal, (2014) 1 SCC 479 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under : 18. Any person aggrieved by any order made by the DRT under Section 17 may also prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the Act. 19. The expression "any person" used in Section 17 is of wide import and takes within its fold not only the borrower but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by action taken under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation Act. Reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in Satyawati Tondon case, (2010) 8 SCC 110 . 9. Recently, in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank and others, (2024) 6 SCC 579 , the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that in such matters the High Court should not entertain the petitions when there is statutory alternative remedy. 10. Para Nos.28, 29 and 41 of PHR Invent Educational Society's case (supra), deserves reproduction as under : "28. It could thus be seen that this Court has strongly deprecated the practice of entertaining writ petitions in such matters. 29. Recently, in Celir LLP, (2024) 2 SCC 1 , after surveying various judgments of this Court, the Court observed thus : "101. More than a decade back, this Court had expressed serious concern despite its repeated pronouncements in regard to the High Courts ignoring the availability of statutory remedies under the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even after the decision of this Court in Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110 , it appears that the High Courts have continued to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 ignoring the statutory remedies under the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act." 41. Even after the decision of this Court in Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110 , it appears that the High Courts have continued to exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 ignoring the statutory remedies under the RDBFI Act and the SARFAESI Act." 41. While dismissing the writ petition, we will have to remind the High Courts of the following words of this Court in Satyawati Tondon's case (supra), since we have come across various matters wherein the High Courts have been entertaining petitions arising out of the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act inspite of availability of an effective alternative remedy : "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"." 11. Nothing could be argued by learned Counsel for the petitioners, on the merits of the order, so as to invoke our extraordinary and supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inspite of the existence of statutory alternative remedy. 12. The civil revision petition is dismissed. 13. Let a copy of this order be sent to the respondent and the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad. 14. No order as to costs. 15. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.