Jharkhand High Court: Rajesh Shankar, J. dismissed the petition on grounds of non-maintainability.
The facts of the case are such that the petitioner took a loan to the tune of Rs 4, 25,000 from the respondent bank namely Allahabad Bank. Due to default in payment of money, a notice was issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 [“SARFAESI Act”] to pay the outstanding amount of Rs 7, 89, 420 within 60 days from the date of the notice, failing which, the respondent-Bank will exercise the power conferred under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. There has been another notice dated 28-11-2019 issued for possession of her property by the Respondent Bank and cautioned the public in general to not deal with the property under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (“Rules, 2002”) by the respondent 2. Aggrieved by the same, instant petition in the nature of certiorari has been filed to quash both the notices.
Counsel for the petitioner Rajiv Nandan Prasad submitted that the petitioner is a disabled lady and also the owner of the property in question in one of the impugned notice, she took a loan and has already paid Rs 8, 00,000 inclusive of the interest but later a huge amount was spent on her treatment at Vellore and as such, she was not able to pay EMI of the said home loan due to which her loan account became irregular and was subsequently declared as N.P.A.
Counsel for the respondent P.A.S. Pati raised an objection on grounds of maintainability as an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is available.
ISSUE 1: Availability of Alternative Remedy
The Court relied on the judgment titled United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, (2010) 8 SCC 110 which held:
“The expression “any person” used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective.”
The Court also relied on the judgment titled Standard Chartered Bank v. Noble Kumar, (2013) 9 SCC 620 which held:
“The “appeal” under Section 17 is available to the borrower against any measure taken under Section 13(4).”
“We are of the opinion that by whatever manner the secured creditor obtains possession either through the process contemplated under Section 14 or without resorting to such a process obtaining of the possession of a secured asset is always a measure against which a remedy under Section 17 is available.”
ISSUE 2: Invoking Writ Jurisdiction in Matters relating to Realization of Loans
The Court relied on the judgment titled Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. (2018) 3 SCC 85 which held :
“Loans by financial institutions are granted from public money generated at the tax payers expense. Such loan does not become the property of the person taking the loan, but retains its character of public money given in a fiduciary capacity as entrustment by the public. Timely repayment also ensures liquidity to facilitate loan to another in need, by circulation of the money and cannot be permitted to be blocked by frivolous litigation by those who can afford the luxury of the same.”
Taking into account the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and judicial pronouncements, the Court held the petition to be non-maintainable directing liberty to the petitioner to take recourse before the appropriate forum.
In view of the above, petition stands dismissed. [Uma Pandey v. Allahabad Bank, 2020 SCC OnLine Jhar 819, decided on 18-06-2020]
Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this story together
