Dismissed

Livgreen Cleantech Private Limited v. the Collector/District Magistrate Haridwar

Uttarakhand HC15 May 2019WPMS/357/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a DRT order under the SARFAESI Act, the Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable due to the availability of an appeal remedy. However, it granted liberty to the petitioner to offer a fresh purchase price to the banks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to approach the lead bank with a fresh offer of purchase; banks to convey decision within two weeks.

Livgreen Cleantech Private Limited Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

WPMS No. 357 of 2019 Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

¶2

Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶3

Mr. S.M.S. Mehta, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 & 2.

¶4

Mr. Vikas Pande, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

Respondent no. 4 owns property at various places, including one at Haridwar. Its property at Haridwar was given on lease to the petitioner. Since respondent no. 4 had mortgaged its property at Haridwar with consortium of banks as security for a loan and respondent no. 4 defaulted in repayment of loan, therefore, proceedings under Section 13 of SARFAESI Act were initiated against it. Petitioner approached Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun under Section 17 (1) of SARFAESI Act by way of Securitization which was filing Appeal, numbered as Securitization Appeal No. 08 of 2019. The said Securitization Appeal came up for consideration before learned Debts Recovery Tribunal on 08.02.2019 and the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal ordered for issuance of notice to private respondents.

¶7

In this writ petition, petitioner is contending that the order passed by learned Debts Recovery Tribunal on 08.02.2019 amounts to refusal on the part of learned Debts Recovery Tribunal to grant interim relief to the petitioner.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is ready and willing to purchase the property in question, which has been leased to the petitioner, for which the petitioner has already made an offer of

¶9

` 6 Crores to Bank of India (respondent no. 3 herein).

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 submits that his client cannot take any unilateral decision in the matter and decision, if any, is to be taken by consortium of banks.

¶11

Since petitioner has a remedy of filing an Appeal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, which the petitioner has already availed, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs. Mathew K.C. in Civil Appeal No. 1281 of 2018. Paragraph no. 4 of the said judgment is extracted below:

¶12

“ 4. The SARFAESI Act is a complete code by itself, providing for expeditious recovery of dues arising out of loans granted by financial institutions, the remedy of appeal by the aggrieved under Section 17 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, followed by a right to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18. The High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition in view of the adequate alternate statutory remedies available to the Respondent. The interim order was passed on the very first date, without an opportunity to the Appellant to file a reply. Reliance was placed on United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010 (8) SCC 110, and General Manager, Sri Siddeshwara Cooperative Bank Limited and another vs. Ikbal and others, 2013 (10) SCC 83. The writ petition ought to have been

¶13

dismissed at the threshold on the ground of maintainability. The Division Bench erred in declining to interfere with the same.”

¶14

In such view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. However, petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the lead bank or consortium of banks with fresh offer and the lead bank or consortium of banks will convey its decision to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of making of such offer by the petitioner.

¶15

(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.) Arpan 15.05.2019

Livgreen Cleantech Private Limited v. the Collector/District Magistrate Haridwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Livgreen Cleantech Private Limited v. the Collector/District Magistrate Haridwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganga Singh Panda Vs Union Of India and Others

Ashok Kumar Vs State Of Uttarakhand Through Secretary Department Of Silk and Others

Saraswati Rana Vs State of Uttarakhand

Amarjeet Singh Saini and Ors. Vs Indian Military Academy Prem Nagar Dehradun and Ors.

Shiv Datt Upadhyay Vs U.p. State Ware Housing Corporation and Others

Smt. Babita Koranga Vs the Union of India