AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Agrawal, C.J. and M. Jaichandren, J.—Heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned. Since common issues are arising for the consideration of this Court, all these Writ Petitions are heard together and a common order is being passed.
It is found that in all the above Writ Petitions, various issues have arisen, relating to the actions initiated by the respondent banks concerned, under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
It is also found that in a number of Writ Petitions, this Court had granted interim orders and some of them are conditional in nature.
We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned. We have also perused the records available. Even though various grounds have been raised on behalf of the parties concerned, we are of the considered view that the parties concerned ought to make their claims, relating to the issues arising for the consideration of this Court, in the above Writ Petitions, before the appropriate forum, as provided under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. We make it clear that it would be open to the parties concerned to raise all the grounds available to them, before the appropriate forum, as per law.
It is noted that the Supreme Court, in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others, has made it clear that the scope of interference by this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is limited in nature. It has also made it clear that the statutory schemes provided under the specific enactments should not be defeated by the exercise of the writ jurisdiction by this Court. As such, the alternative remedies provided to the petitioner, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of the Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, ought not to be interfered with, by this Court, by invoking its writ jurisdiction, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has reiterated the said position of law, in a recent decision, in GM, Sri Siddeshwara Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Another Vs. Sri Ikbal and Others, .
In view of the above, the aggrieved parties are permitted to move the appropriate forum provided under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which, it would be open to the respondent banks concerned to proceed further, as per the relevant provisions of law, including the provisions contained in the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. If the aggrieved parties approach the appropriate forum in time, as specified in this order, the appropriate forum shall entertain such matters, on merits and in accordance with law and dispose of the same, without raising the issue of delay, in the filing of the matters. We also make it clear that the parties concerned including the respondent banks, shall maintain status quo, for a period of eight weeks, from today. Further, it is seen that some of the parties to the present proceedings had complied with the conditional orders, passed by this Court, by paying or depositing certain amounts of money. If it is so, the same shall also be taken into consideration, by the appropriate forum, while deciding the matters before it. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to dismiss the above Writ Petitions, with the observations and directions, incorporated in this order. Accordingly, the above Writ Petitions stand dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.