Petitioner challenged a SARFAESI Act notice via writ petition seeking more time to pay loan dues. Court held the petition not maintainable as statutory remedy under Section 17 exists and was allowed to approach DRT.
Leave granted to approach the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing statutory appeal.
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.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010104502023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2672/2023
CORNELIUS SUCHIANG S/O- SRI TYRANG POSHSNEM, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF LOOMSOOIUNG, NEW HILL JOWAI, WEST JAINTIA HILL JOWAI, MEGHALAYA-793150.
VERSUS
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND 2 ORS (PNB), REPRESENTED BY THE ZONAL MANAGER, PNB ZONAL OFFICE, NILGIRI MANSION, GUWAHATI SHILLONG RD, SATSANG VIHAR, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN-781005.
2:CIRCLE HEAD/ CHIEF MANAGE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK CO-SASTRA GUWAHATI (D.NO. 8231) NILGIRI MANSION 1ST FLOOR BHANGAGARH G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI-781005 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 3:BRANCH MANAGER PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK (PNB) (ERSTWHILE THE UNITED BANK OF INDIA) BRANCH OFFICE JOWAI WEST JAINTIA HILLS MEGHALAYA-793150
Page No.# 2/3
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Ray, Advocate.
Ms. T. Das, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. S. Dutta, Standing Counsel, Punjab National Bank.
– B E F O R E –
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
17.05.2023
The present writ petition is preferred by the petitioner seeking to assail the Notice dated 17.04.2023 issued by the respondent Bank under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ( SARFAESI Act) read with Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002.
The writ petitioner had availed a loan Rs.30,00,000/- as cash credit facility from the respondent Bank. Although the petitioner initially repaid some amount, however, due to covid pandemic and loss in his business, the petitioner could not repay the loan amount on time. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a proposal for One Time Settlement (OTS) which was duly approved by the competent authority of the respondent Bank at an amount of Rs.29,00,000/- to be paid within a period of 90 days w.e.f. 20.10.2022. On the basis of the said OTS, the petitioner has paid Rs.15,00,000/leaving an amount of Rs.14,00,000/- as balance which was required to be paid in three instalments. However, the petitioner failed to pay the instalment of OTS amount to the respondent bank and consequently, the respondent Bank issued the impugned notice dated 17.04.2023 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 directing the
Page No.# 3/3
petitioner to pay the outstanding dues within 30 days from the receipt of the notice with further interest from 31.10.2019 and costs incurred, while taking possession of the mortgaged property. It was also indicated that if the petitioner fails to repay the aforesaid amounts within the stipulated period, the mortgaged property will be put to auction sale.
The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to grant some more time to the petitioner for payment of outstanding loan amount.
As a statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is available to the petitioner to approach the DRT by filing suitable application against the impugned proceedings, we are of the firm opinion that the instant writ petition is not maintainable, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 28612862/2023, decided on 17.04.2023].
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed as being not maintainable. However, the petitioner is granted leave to approach the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing statutory appeal, if so advised.
With the above observations, the writ petition stands closed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act is maintainable when a statutory remedy under Section 17 is available.
Whether the High Court should dismiss a writ petition for lack of maintainability in cases covered by the Debt Recovery Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr.Followed¶21
M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 28612862/2023, decided on 17.04.2023]
2 provisions across 2 enactments
CORNELIUS SUCHIANG
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK
MITALI THAKURIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
