AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J.—Petitioners have sought for quashing the Sale Notifications together with the letter dated 24.2.2010 vide Annexure-''C'' issued under SARFAESI Act. They have also sought for a direction to the Respondents to consider their request for one time settlement.
During the pendency of this writ petition, an interim order was granted by this Court, subject to the Petitioners depositing Rs. 30 lakhs. Accordingly, the said amount is deposited by the Petitioner and consequently the interim order is continued till this day. Sri V.B. Shivakumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that even thereafter certain amounts are deposited by the Petitioner.
Sri Gururaj Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents-Corporation submits that the Petitioners are not eligible to be considered under one time settlement scheme (called CAR scheme). He brings to the notice of the Court the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Ors. in SLP (C) No. 10145/2010, disposed of on 26.7.2010/
In the judgment of the Apex Court (cited supra), it is observed thus:
Para 27: It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.
Para-28; In so far as this case is concerned, we are convinced that the High Court was not at all justified in injuncting the Appellant from taking action in furtherance of notice issued u/s 13(4) of the Act.
From the above, it is clear that the High Court cannot ignore the availability of statutory remedies under DRT and SURFAESI Act while entertaining the writ petition u/s 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Writ Petition was entertained by this Court, since it was submitted by the Petitioners advocate that there is likelihood of compromise. Now the learned Counsel for the Respondent has clarified that there is no likelihood of compromise and the matte* has to go before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under the provisions of DRT Act. Thus no useful purpose will be served in keeping writ petition pending. Accordingly, the following order is made:
The writ petitions are disposed of, with liberty to the Petitioners to approach the jurisdictional Tribunal under DRT Act within four weeks from this day. If the Petitioners approach the Tribunal within four weeks from this day, the question of limitation shall not be raised. The interim order granted by this Court will continue to operate for further period of five weeks. It is open for the Petitioner to seek any appropriate interim order, if he so chooses, before the Tribunal.
Since the main matters are disposed of, Misc.W. No. 4209/2010 does not arise for consideration and accordingly the same is also dismissed.