IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NOs.14165-14166/2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN 1. Mr. SACHIN CHUGH S/O. RAJENDER PRAKASH CHUGH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 2. MRs. SMITHA B.S. W/O. SACHIN CHUGH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF FLAT No.B-1, FIRST FLOOR, BOGINENI PARK WEST APARTMENT, SITE NOs.30 & 31, PID NO.82-1-31 12TH CROSS ROAD, CMH ROAD, INDIRANAGAR, BINNAMANGALA 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU-560 038.
PRESENTLY STAYING AT B-203, IXORA SUITES, SUITE NOs.18 AND 19 9TH MAIN, INDIRANAGAR, 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU-560 038. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI GOVINDARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI P NEHRU, ADVOCATE ) AND THE AUTHORISED OFFICER PNB HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, MATHRUSRI ARCADE, 100 FT. RING ROAD, 1ST PHASE, 2ND STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 027. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI LOKESH K V, ADVOCATE) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO HAND OVER THE KEYS OF APARTMENT TO THE PETITIONERS TO ALLOW THEM TO STAY AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners herein are seeking direction to the respondent – Authorized officer, PNB Housing Finance Limited, to deliver the possession of the petition schedule apartment in their favour and to allow them to reside therein. They have also sought for deferment of auction proceedings by six months from the date of this petition to enable them to clear the overdue amount.
2. When these writ petitions are taken up for consideration, Sri K.V. Lokesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, would submit that the proceedings initiated for sale of the petition schedule property can be challenged only by filing appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’ for brevity).
3. The said submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is placed on record. Even otherwise, the Apex Court, in several cases including Satyawati Tondon’s case (United Bank Of India vs. Satyawati Tondon reported in 2010 (8) SCC 110), has opined that in cases relating to recovery of the dues of banks, financial institutions and secured creditors, stay granted by High Courts would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of such bodies/institutions, which ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation and hence, High Courts should not ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and SARFAESI Act and should exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.
4. In that view of the matter, the present writ petitions cannot be entertained and are liable to be dismissed.
5. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed.
However, while doing so, liberty is reserved to the petitioners herein to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act for redressal of their grievance.
Sd/- JUDGE sma