Dismissed

Badri Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC10 Feb 2021WRIC/4532/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging orders under the SARFAESI Act, the division bench dismissed the petition on the ground of alternative remedy, citing Supreme Court precedents mandating exclusive jurisdiction of DRTs for such disputes and cautioning against interim orders by High Courts.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy; no relief granted to petitioner.

Badri Prasad Shukla Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4532 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Badri Prasad Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Bhajan Chaudhary,Vikrant Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Habib Ahmad

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Habib Ahmad, learned counsel for respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 and learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 2. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed seeking following reliefs :-

¶7

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for record of the case and to quash the order dated 15.12.2020 passed by the respondent no.2 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner before it being pre-matrued (Annexure no.1 to the writ petition).

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for record of the case and to quash the notice dated 07.01.2020 issued by the respondent no.4 for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,70,326.53 (Annexure no.2 to the writ petition).

¶9

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent bank to take the outstanding loan from the petitioner in installments as agreed by this Hon'ble Court and the respondent bank.

¶10

(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent bank to permit the petitioner to operate his salary account held by the respondent bank."

¶11

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-bank has raised a

¶12

preliminary objection that against the proceedings initiated under Sections 13 (2) and 13 (4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, the "SARFAESI Act"), the petitioner has remedy to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner had approached before Misc. Bench No.17448 of 2010 which was dismissed vide order dated 21.10.2020 with liberty to approach appropriate forum.

¶13

The said contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent-bank has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

We have considered the submissions made at the bar.

¶15

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Umakanta Mohapatra, Civil Appeal Nos. 10243-10250 of 2018, decided on 05.10.2018 , has held as under:

¶16

"Delay condoned.

¶17

Leave granted.

¶18

Despite several judgments of this Court, including a judgment by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha, as recently as on 30.01.2018, in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Another VS Mathew KC., (2018) 3 SCC 85, the High Courts continue to entertain matters which arise under 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 NonPerforming Assets (NPAs).

¶19

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:-

¶20

"18. We cannot help but disapprove the approach of the High Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. Vs

¶21

Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd and another, (1997) 6 SCC 450, observing:-

¶22

"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."

¶23

The writ petition, in this case, being not maintainable, obviously, all orders passed must perish, including the impugned order, which is set aside.

¶24

The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶25

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of."

¶26

Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C. Bright Vs. The District Collector & others, Civil Appeal No. 3441 of 2020 decided on 05.11.2020 has observed as follows:

¶27

"21. Even though, this Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon & Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 110 held that in cases relating to recovery of the dues of banks, financial institutions and secured creditors, stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of such bodies/institutions, which will ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation. Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters. Hindon Forge Private Limited has held that the remedy of an aggrieved person by a

¶28

secured creditor under the Act is by way of an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, how- ever, borrowers and other aggrieved persons are invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India without availing the alternative statutory remedy. The Hon'ble High Courts are well aware of the limitations in exercising their jurisdiction when effective alternative remedies are available, but a word of caution would be still necessary for the High Courts that interim orders should generally not be passed without hearing the secured creditor as interim orders defeat the very purpose of expeditious recovery of public money.

¶29

22. Thus, we do not find any error in the order passed by the High Court. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed."

¶30

In view of the availability of alternative remedy and since highly disputed questions of facts are involved, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

¶31

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.

¶32

Order Date :- 10.2.2021 Manish Himwan

Badri Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badri Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sushila Devi Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Smt. Kaisher Jahan Vs Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. and 2 Others

Shiv Jatan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd. Isha Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Bhagwati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others