Dismissed

M/S Charanji Lal Sudarshan Lal v. Authorized Officer Punjab National Bank

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Jul 2011CWP/11002/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a bank sale of secured property at a discounted price under the SARFAESI Act. The court held an alternative remedy existed under Section 17 and dismissed the writ petition, citing Supreme Court precedents limiting writ jurisdiction for SARFAESI enforcement actions.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioners have other remedies available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

M/S Charanji Lal Sudarshan Lal Vs Authorized… — Banking and Recovery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

C.W.P. No.11002 of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

C.W.P. No.11002 of 2011 Date of Decision.06.07.2011

¶5

M/s Charanji Lal Sudarshan Lal and another

¶6

.....Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Authorized Officer, Punjab National Bank through its Branch Manager, Branch Office New Sabzi Mandi, Hoshiarpur

¶9

.....Respondent

¶10

Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶11

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶12

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No

¶13

To be referred to the Reporters or not ? Yes

¶14

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

¶15

-.-

¶16

K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks for an intervention at

¶18

the stage when the financial institution, which has lent money to the petitioners is seeking for recovery under the SARFAESI Act by putting up the property for sale. The sale is purported to be held under the terms of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The petitioners' grievance is that the property is worth more than Rs.1 crore but it has fixed for sale at exceedingly low price and the petitioners are not backing away from the responsibility of having to make the payment but the bank is interested only in putting up property to sale and harass the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the property is sold in violation of the Rules. The procedure for sale is stipulated under Rule 8

¶19

C.W.P. No.11002 of 2011 -2-

¶20

of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. It is the duty of the petitioners to raise such objection relating to valuation when the proclamation for sale is drawn up and seek for an adjudication and for any order that is passed, the petitioners shall have an appropriate and adequate remedy by preferring an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT. In Transcore Vs. Union of India & Anr (2008) 1 SCC 125 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is an effective alternative remedy which is available and it shall not become possible to resort to intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution. It has also been recently held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon (2010) 8 SCC 110 that the Court has limited powers to order interim stay in respect of actions taken under the SARFAESI Act and in a still later decision in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev Vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 2 SCC 782 , it has been held that an interference under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution in case where the action is taken under SARFAESI will be inappropriate. As much as the Court has power to interfere to see that injustice is not perpetrated and the Court has immense powers for exercise its discretion, for the very same, there requires to be greater circumspection that this jurisdiction is not misused. Supplications for sympathetic consideration cannot be entertained even against express provisions of the Act and make meaningless the dynamic provisions contained under the SARFAESI Act whose constitutional and legislative vires were upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mardia Chemicals Ltd. etc. Vs. Union of India etc 2004(4) SCC 311.

¶21