Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2675 of 2019 Petitioner :- Kanishka Kumar Respondent :- Bank Of Baroda Through Branch Manager And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Wahaj Ahmad Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- Anadi Krishna Narayana
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard W.H. Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the respondent bank.
The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the auction notice dated 18.12.2018, with a further direction to the respondents not to proceed with the auction till disposal of S.A. No. 31 of 2019 pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
We put a direct question to the learned counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner has filed an application seeking stay of the auction proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal in the appellate proceedings to which he replied in negative.
In a recent judgement of the Supreme Court dated 5.10.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No. 10251-10265 of 2018 (ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. Umakant Mahapatra), the Supreme Court has held as under:-
"Delay Condoned.
Leave granted.
Despite several judgements of this Court, including a judgment by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha, as recently as on 30.01.2018 , in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Anr. vs. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85, the High Courts continue to entertain matters which arise under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), and keep granting interim orders in favour of persons who are Non-Performing Assets (NPAs).
The writ petition itself was not maintainable, as a result of which, in view of our recent judgment, which has followed earlier judgments of this Court, held as follows :
"18. We cannot help but disapprove the approach of the High Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh Sugar Industrict Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. and Another, (1997) 6 SCC 450, observing :-
"32. When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and then to pass a judicial order which is clearly contrary to the settled legal position. Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and we strongly deprecate the tendency of the subordinate courts in not applying the settled principles and in passing whimsical orders which necessarily has the effect of granting wrongful and unwarranted relief to one of the parties. It is time that this tendency stops."
The writ petition, in this case, being not maintainable, obviously, all orders passed must perish, including the impugned order, which is set aside.
The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of."
In our opinion, this writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner should seek his remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal itself.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.1.2019 nd