The Bombay High Court disposed of multiple writ petitions filed by borrowers against the State Bank of India as a quia timet action. The Court held that since the petitioners admitted the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, there was no necessity for civil intervention at this stage.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp35-14++
sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.35 OF 2014
Surajit Chandra Baruah V/s. Board of Directors of State Bank of India & Ors.
..Petitioner.
..Respondents.
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2867 OF 2013 AND WRIT PETITION (L) NO.2868 OF 2013 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.389 OF 2014 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.392 OF 2014 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.396 OF 2014 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.397 OF 2014
Indira Baruah V/s.
Board of Directors of State Bank of India & Ors.
..Petitioner.
..Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO.172 OF 2014 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.386 OF 2014 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.387 OF 2014 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.390 OF 2014 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.395 OF 2014 AND WRIT PETITION NO.275 OF 2014
Vijay Kashyap V/s.
..Petitioner.
Board of Directors of State Bank of India & Ors. ..Respondents.
WRIT PETITION NO.179 OF 2014
1/4
wp35-14++
Smt. Susheela w/o. U.K. Nambiar V/s.
Board of Directors of State Bank of India & Ors.
..Petitioner.
..Respondents.
Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara with Mr. Nishant Sangle for the petitioner in WP No.35/14 & 179/14
Mr. Mathews J. Nedumpara with Ms. Rohini Amin for the petitioner in WPL No.2867/13, 2868/13 and i/b. Ms. Sophia Pinto in WP No.172/14 & WP No.275/14.
Mr. Satish Upadhyay i/b. M.V. Kini & Co. for respondent Nos.1 to 4 in WP No.35/14.
Mr. Lalit Kumar Jain i/b. Lalit Kumar Jain & Co. for respondent Nos.1 & 2 in WPL No.2867/14, 2868/14 & 275/14.
Ms. Amita Joshi for respondent No.4 in WP No.179/14.
Smt. V.M. Dongare for respondent Nos., 7, 8 & 10 in WP No.179/14.
CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR AND A.K. MENON, JJ.
DATED : 7TH JULY, 2014
P.C. :-
the petitioner himself submits that the DRT / DRAT have jurisdiction to consider the issue as to whether or not they can be declared willful
2/4
wp35-14++
defaulters and also as to whether the 'master circular' is contrary to law or not.
3/4
wp35-14++
an application under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) being made. Even regarding the same, it is always open to the petitioner to make any application before the Metropolitan Magistrate so as to challenge the order in the event of the same being adverse to the petitioner.
4/4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain writ petitions challenging the declaration of willful defaulters when the petitioner admits jurisdiction lies with the DRT/DRAT.
Whether the quorum current of this judgment allows the court to pass an opinion on the jurisdiction of the SARFAESI Act.
Whether the writ petitions filed as a quia timet action require the impleadment of the assignee of the State Bank of India.
Surajit Chandra Baruah
Board of Directors of State Bank of India
S.J. VAZIFDAR
A.K. MENON
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
