Shaffique, J.
The appellant/2nd petitioner claims to be a borrower of the respondent Bank. The Bank had taken possession of his property in a proceeding under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The writ petition was filed seeking for a direction to the respondents not to take coercive steps.
2. During the hearing, the respondent Bank pointed out that the petitioner had approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal (for short 'DRT') by filing a Securitisation Application No.202 of 2014 and sought for time for settling the liability. Though time was granted, he could not settle the liability within the time specified by DRT. Subsequently he applied for extension of time which came to be dismissed. Challenging the same, he filed O.P.(DRT) No. 78 of 2014 before this Court.
This Court granted an interim order calling upon him to pay Rs.5 lakhs within a specified time. He could not comply with the said order as well. Without disclosing these factual aspects, the present writ petition was filed. Hence without knowing about the earlier orders, the learned Single Judge granted an interim order which also was not complied with. The full particulars were known only when the respondent Bank appeared and represented the matter. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner did not approach the Court with clean hands by not disclosing the particulars of earlier orders, which amounts to mis representation, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition with costs.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the petitioner only requires some time to settle the liability. It is a settled position of law that this Court shall not normally interfere with the proceedings taken by Bank under the SARFAESI Act. This Court exercises its power to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction only when the debtor expresses an intention to settle the liability. But even in such cases, the petitioner has to disclose all necessary particulars. Failure to furnish the details of the earlier Securitisation Application and Writ Petition, itself is enough for this Court to refuse exercise of discretionary jurisdiction.
In view of the above facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition with costs. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
Ashok Bhushan, Acting Chief Justice.
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
ttb/14/11