Divided Bench special appeal dismissed challenging a Single Judge order in SARFAESI proceedings. Appealing parties alleged inability to repay loan but sale certificate was already issued. Bench found writ not maintainable under Supreme Court precedent.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:2697-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 272/2023
Versus
| For Appellant(s) | : Mr. Gaurav Shrimali |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Dhanesh Kumar Saraswat |
| Mr. Dipendra Singh Rao | |
| Mr. Devan Maheshwari | |
| Mr. Siddharth Mandawat |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI Order
17/01/2024
This intra court appeal is filed by the appellants being aggrieved with the order dated 09.09.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2033/2023.
In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioners has challenged the auction notice dated 02.12.2022 issued by the bank in the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the provisions of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2022 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the SARFAESI Act’).
The learned Single Judge, after recording a finding that the petitioners, despite granting opportunity have shown their inability to repay the entire amount of loan has observed that the petitioners are not ready to pay the entire outstanding amount of
(2 of 2)
[2024:RJ-JD:2697-DB]
[SAW-272/2023]
loan, has refused to interfere in the matter and dismissed the writ petition.
It is informed that pursuant to the auction notice dated 02.12.2022, the auction proceedings have already been concluded and the sale certificate has also been issued in favour of the auction purchaser.
Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Otherwise also, the writ petition filed by the petitioners against the auction notice issued in the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, is not maintainable in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “ United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondan & Ors.” reported in AIR 2010 SC 3413 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
“It is matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 fr passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.”
Resultantly, the present special appeal writ being bereft of force is hereby dismissed.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
112-nitin/divyaJ/-
Harish Suhalka and Another
Union Bank Of India and Others
Rajendra Prakash Soni
Vijay Bishnoi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
