Dismissed

Santosh Jaipuria and Ors. v. The State Bank Of India and Ors.

Patna HC11 Sept 2013C. REV./286/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a review petition, the Patna High Court dismissed the application seeking modification of an earlier order which held a writ petition maintainability was barred by alternative statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act. The court ruled no jurisdiction exists in Civil Court under the SARFAESI Act.

What did the court decide?

The modification application dismissing the writ petition was dismissed.

Santosh Jaipuria and Ors. Vs The State Bank Of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.286 of 2012

¶2

¶3

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 23352 of 2011

¶4

====================================================== 1. Santosh Jaipuria W/O Sri Binod Kumar R/O B-33, Geetanjali Apartment, Shastri Nagar, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna 2. Binod Kumar S/O Late Jhawarmal Jaipuria R/O B-33, Geetanjali Apartment, Shastri Nagar, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Bank Of India, Corporate Centre State Bank Bhawan, Madama Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021, Through Its Chairman 2. The General Manager (Net Work-I) Null State Bank Of India, Local Head Office, West Gandhi Maidan, P.S.- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna 3. The Chief Branch Manager State Bank Of India, Sheikhpura, Raja Bazar Branch, Raja Bazar, P.S.- Hawai Adda, District- Patna 4. The Assistant General Manager State Bank Of India, Main Branch, West Of Gandhi Maidan, Ps..- Gandhi Maidan, District- Patna 5. Mrs. Putul Kar W/O Shri Narayan Chandra Kar R/O B-3/4, I G I M S Campus, P.O.- Bihar Veterinary College, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, DistrictPatna 6. Shri Narayan Chandra Kar S/O Shri Mathur Chandra Kar R/O B-3/4, I G I M S Campus, P.O.- Bihar Veterinary College, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna 7. Rajesh Kumar S/O Not Known R/O 4 D, Savita Apartment, New Patliputra Colony, P.S.- Patliputra, District- Patna - 800013 .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Yugal Kishore, Senior Advocate Mr. Birendra Narayan Sharma For the State Bank of India: Mr. Santosh Kumar Singh For Opp. Party No.7 : Mr. Nagendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER

¶5

8 11-09-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsels for the opposite party State Bank of India and for the opposite party No.7.

¶6

The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated

¶7

Patna High Court C. REV. No.286 of 2012 (8) dt.11-09-2013

¶8

¶9

1.5.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No.23352 of 2011.

¶10

By the said order, this Court has dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable with observation that the rejection of the application shall not affect the right of the petitioners to challenge the order dated 6.1.2012 rejecting the injunction petition filed by the petitioners in Title Mortgage Suit No.234 of 2008 filed by the Bank in appropriate proceedings.

¶11

In the aforesaid writ application, the prayer had been made for quashing the SARFAESI case as well as the sale-cumauction notice published on 20.10.2011 and 04.12.2011 against the petitioners and for consequential reliefs.

¶12

It is evident that the statutory remedy has been provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act for filing an appeal against any order passed by the Banks and Financial Institutions under Section 13 (4) of the Act.

¶13

Thus, in any view of the matter, the writ application was not maintainable before this Court on the merits of the case, as there was an alternative statutory remedy available to the petitioners.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Bank has since withdrawn the Title Mortgage Suit No.234 of 2008 and the petitioners have been left remediless; in the said

¶15

Patna High Court C. REV. No.286 of 2012 (8) dt.11-09-2013

¶16

¶17

circumstances the order dated 1.5.2012, which expressly stated that the rejection of the writ application shall not affect the right of the petitioners to challenge the order dated 6.1.2012, has become of no effect.

¶18

In my view, it is open to the plaintiff of the suit to proceed with the case or not and face the consequences in case the matter is dismissed in default of prosecution. The same does not confer any right upon the defendant with respect to any injunction petition. As a matter of fact in terms of the provisions of Sections 34 and 35 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which a Debts Recovery Tribunal or the Appellate Tribunal is empowered by or under the said Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under that Act or under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, and further the provisions of the SARFAESI Act shall override the provisions of other law.

¶19

If at all the petitioners have been rendered remediless, it is on account of not pursuing the matter before the correct forum

¶20

Patna High Court C. REV. No.286 of 2012 (8) dt.11-09-2013

¶21

¶22

against the action taken by the Bank. In the said circumstances I see no reason to modify the order dated 1.5.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No.23352 of 2011.

¶23

The modification application is, accordingly,

¶24

dismissed.

¶25

The rejection of the modification petition shall not have any effect on any other remedy, which the petitioners have under the law, in the present matter.

¶26

V.P.Sinha/- (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)

Santosh Jaipuria and Ors. v. The State Bank Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Jaipuria and Ors. v. The State Bank Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md.Moinuddin Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Surendra Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Rajiv Kumar and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Naresh Das Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Alpna Kumari Vs The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors.

Mrs. Sidhidatri Sinha Vs Sri Om Prakaash Sinha