Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard Shri Dharm Raj Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vinay Shankar, learned counsel representing the respondent-Bank.
By means of these proceedings instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a prayer has been made that the respondent no.2-Bank be directed to provide the benefit of One Time Settlement Scheme to the petitioner said to have been initiated at the instance of the Reserve Bank of India and restore the position of the properties of the petitioner which existed prior to 09.12.2020. A further prayer has been made seeking a direction to the respondents not to take any coercive measures against the petitioner and further to accept the loan amount in installment as per provisions of One Time Settlement Scheme.
Learned counsel representing the respondent-Bank, however, opposing the prayer made in this writ petition, has submitted that the proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 have already been instituted against the petitioner wherein two properties i.e. secured assets were auctioned on 08.12.2020 and three other properties were auctioned on 28.12.2020. It has further been stated that out of five properties of the petitioner which have been auctioned on 08.12.2020 and 28.12.2020, possession in respect of three properties has already been taken and in respect of two other properties proceedings under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 have been instituted before the District Collector concerned.
Drawing attention of the Court to an order dated 05.01.2021 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.4 (M/B) of 2021 which was filed by one of the Directors of the petitioner-company, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank that earlier one of the Directors of the petitioner-company had approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition challenging the auction notice which was dismissed by the Court making it open to the petitioner to invoke the provisions of Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 and in this view the instant writ petition would not be maintainable.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the submissions made by the learned counsel representing the Bank has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Associates and others vs. Punjab & Sind Bank and others, reported in [(2009) 8 SCC 257] and has submitted that even in case where proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 have been initiated, in appropriate cases Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court can be issued to enforce the One Time Settlement Scheme, which is statutory in nature, having been issued by the Reserve Bank of India in its statutory power vested in it under the Reserve Bank of India Act.
So far as the legal principles enunciated in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Associates and others (supra) is concerned, there cannot be may dispute. The question is as to whether it would be appropriate for this Court to issue any such Mandamus which has been prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition, at a juncture where under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act the proceedings for auction of the secured assets have taken place and out of five properties, auction in respect of three has also taken place and in respect of rest of the properties, proceedings under section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 have been instituted.
The petitioner has already availed the remedy available to it under section 17 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 by instituting proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Further this Court had refused to interfere in the matter when one of the Directors of the petitioner-company had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.4 (M/B) of 2021 leaving it open to take recourse to the remedy which may be available to it under section 17 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and also taking into consideration that auction of the secured assets has already taken place and possession in respect of the properties has already been taken and further that the petitioner has already invoked the provisions of section 17 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 by instituting proceedings challenging the auction and recovery proceedings, we are of the opinion that this writ petition would not be maintainable.
Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
We, however, may observe that in the proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal instituted by the petitioner under section 17 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002, the petitioner may take all the pleas which may be available to it under law. The proceedings instituted under section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 shall be expedited by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Order Date :- 27.1.2021 akhilesh/ [Manish Kumar, J.] [D. K. Upadhyaya, J.]