The Delhi High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging SARFAESI Act proceedings. The Court held the petitions were not maintainable due to the existence of an effective alternative remedy and dismissed them for lack of territorial jurisdiction.
The writ petitions were dismissed for lack of maintainability and territorial jurisdiction.
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.
$~1 to 3 & 8.
AMISH JAIN & ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Amish Jain, petitioner no.1 in person.
Versus
ICICI BANK LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Punit K. Bhalla & Ms. Chetna Bhalla, Advs.
AND
Versus
ICICI BANK LTD. ..... Respondent
AND
Versus
ICICI BANK LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Punit K. Bhalla & Ms. Chetna Bhalla, Advs.
AND
Versus
W.P.(C) Nos.8516/2015, 9317/2015, 9383/2015 & 858/2016
Page 1 of 9
ICICI BANK LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Punit K. Bhalla & Ms. Chetna Bhalla, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
O R D E R % 04.02.2016
CM No.3772/2016 in W.P.(C) 858/2016 (for exemption)
W.P.(C) Nos.8516/2015, 9317/2015, 9383/2015 & 858/2016
been adjourned on four occasions on the request of the petitioner no.1 who appears in person that he needs to prepare the matter and / or file further documents. W.P.(C) No.858/2016 has come before this Court for the first time today.
ready and / or prepared to argue the matters. Such repeated listing of petitions cannot be permitted.
W.P.(C) Nos.8516/2015, 9317/2015, 9383/2015 & 858/2016
Page 2 of 9
W.P.(C) Nos.8516/2015, 9317/2015, 9383/2015 & 858/2016
Page 3 of 9
Meerut for non filing by the respondent Bank of the requisite documents. It is further informed that proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act were initiated in the year 2013 with respect to loan subject matter of W.P.(C) No.9317/2015 but were also closed by the ADM, Meerut because of non filing of documents by the respondent Bank.
W.P.(C) Nos.8516/2015, 9317/2015, 9383/2015 & 858/2016
Page 4 of 9
to entertain the appeal then preferred by the petitioners under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act for the reason of the petitioners being residents of outside Delhi and for the reason of the loan having been sanctioned by the branch of the respondent Bank at Meerut and being repayable at Meerut and the mortgaged property also being at Meerut; the DRT further held that merely because the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act had been issued by the Jhandewalan Branch of the respondent Bank would not vest the DRT, Delhi a jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in Delhi and that the Bank under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act would also have to approach the concerned District Magistrate at Meerut and not the CMM at Delhi.
W.P.(C) Nos.8516/2015, 9317/2015, 9383/2015 & 858/2016
Page 5 of 9
W.P.(C) Nos.8516/2015, 9317/2015, 9383/2015 & 858/2016
Page 6 of 9
owing to the SARFAESI Act being a self-contained code and the remedies provided therein being alternative efficacious remedy. Attention in this regard is also invited to the judgment dated 22nd November, 2013 in W.P.(C) No.2132/2012 titled Bijender Kumar Gupta Vs. Corporation Bank of India . Attention is also drawn to the judgment dated 9th April, 2014 in Civil Appeal No.4453/2014 titled Jacky Vs. Tiny @ Antony , though not in relation to SARFAESI Act on the general proposition of non maintainability of a writ petition if alternative remedy is provided.
1961, in CIT Vs. Chhabil Dass Aggarwal (2014) 1 SCC 603 has held a writ petition, on the grounds of non compliance of principles of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction also to be not maintainable when alternative remedy is provided in the special statute and when the said grounds can also be taken therein. Following the said judgment the Division Bench of this Court
W.P.(C) Nos.8516/2015, 9317/2015, 9383/2015 & 858/2016
Page 7 of 9
in Yashwant Singh Vs. Indian Bank 220 (2015) DLT 667 has observed that Article 226 of the Constitution of India has virtually been done away with wherever the remedy against the order of a Tribunal or an authority constituted under a special statute is provided for.
W.P.(C) Nos.8516/2015, 9317/2015, 9383/2015 & 858/2016
Page 8 of 9
the DRT or the Magistrate at Meerut only would have jurisdiction has been authoritatively settled by the Full Bench of this Court, if this Court starts entertaining these writ petitions, it will lead to a conflict, with the authorities in the State of Uttar Pradesh who are not under the supervisory control of this Court, passing orders inconsistent to the orders which may be passed in these petitions if were to be entertained.
No costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J
FEBRUARY 04, 2016 ‘gsr’..
W.P.(C) Nos.8516/2015, 9317/2015, 9383/2015 & 858/2016
Page 9 of 9
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable challenging actions under the SARFAESI Act when an alternative statutory remedy is provided.
Whether the High Court at Delhi has territorial jurisdiction over SARFAESI proceedings concerning loans and mortgaged properties situated in Uttar Pradesh.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s Sigma Generators Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Oriental Bank of CommerceRelied on¶57
LPA No.784/2014
Bijender Kumar Gupta Vs. Corporation Bank of IndiaRelied on¶58
W.P.(C) No.2132/2012
Jacky Vs. Tiny @ AntonyReferred¶58
Civil Appeal No.4453/2014
Harbanslal Sahnia Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.Distinguished¶59
(2003) 2 SCC 107 · Who else cites this
United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati TondonDistinguished¶59
(2010) 9 SCR 1 · Who else cites this
CIT Vs. Chhabil Dass AggarwalExplained¶61
(2014) 1 SCC 603 · Who else cites this
Yashwant Singh Vs. Indian BankRelied on¶64
220 (2015) DLT 667 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Amish Jain
ICICI Bank Ltd.
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
