LAWS(KAR)-2023-8-208

NARAYANA MUKUNDA REDDY Vs. IDFC FIRST BANK LIMITED

Decided On August 03, 2023
Narayana Mukunda Reddy Appellant
V/S
Idfc First Bank Limited Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners being the borrowers, are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the coercive proceedings of loan recover instituted under the provisions of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Learned counsel for the Petitioners vehemently argues that the subject coercive proceedings is sought with too many infirmities and therefore, the same are liable to be invalidated in writ jurisdiction. He highlights that the auction took place on 3/8/2022 and on the same day, it was confirmed too. It is only a sample case of violation of the statutory norms, argues he. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank and the learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the auction buyer vehemently opposes the petition contending that: the subject security property having been sold in an auction held on 3/8/2022, the 2nd Respondent being the highest bidder has paid the bid amount; he has obtained the Sale Certificate following confirmation of auction and the Sale Deed has also been registered; once all this happens, Writ Petition is not maintainable; Petitioners have got an alternate & equally efficacious remedy of appeal as provided u/s 17 of the 2002 Act and therefore, they should be relegated to appellate authority, there being no special circumstances warranting interference of the Writ Court. So contending, they seek dismissal of the Writ Petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioners added that there is possibility of subject property being alienated or encumbered by the 2nd Respondent and if that happens, his clients would not get any justice at the hands of appellate authority and therefore, the same should be interdicted. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the 2nd Respondent - auction buyer repels this submission contending that once the Writ Petition is not maintainable, it is not open to the Court to make protective provision while relegating the Petitioners to appeal. In support of this contention, he banks upon decision of this Court in STATE OF ORISSA vs. MADAN GOPAL RUNGTA, AIR 1952 SC 12.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, this court is broadly in agreement with the submission made on behalf of the Respondents that the Petitioner should be relegated to appellate remedy, keeping open all contentions. However, this Court does not agree with learned Sr. Advocate Mr. S Basavaraj appearing for the 2nd Respondent that no protective provision can be made for facilitating the availment of appellate remedy by the Petitioner. The decision in MADAN GOPAL RUNGTA supra was arose from a case where the High Court even after passing the final order had granted three months protection to the Petitioner's possession against the Government, even when Sec. 80 of CPC, 1908, requiring notice was staring at it. There were other facts as well. Case of the Petitioners herein is not of lack of jurisdiction of this Court but its reluctance to exercise the same. When a litigant is being relegated to alternate remedy, the Court can make some short accommodation as is required for its availment. This view gains support from the decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in DIRECTOR DEFENCE R & D LABORATORIES v. C PANDA AIR 77 AP 7. It hardly needs to be stated that there is a vast difference between a Petition not being maintainable and a Petition not being entertained on merits; merely because a statutory authority is constituted for entertaining the appeal, that does not and cannot oust the writ jurisdiction constitutionally vested in this Court, as has been observed by the Apex Court L CHANDRAKUMAR vs. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1997 SC 1125. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed off, reserving liberty to the Petitioners to avail the remedy of appeal as indicated by the Bank's counsel; all contentions are kept open; if appeal is filed within five weeks reckoned from this day, the issue of limitation/laches would pale into insignificance. Registry is directed to refund the amount deposited by the Petitioners pursuant to interim orders of this Court, immediately. The Respondent - auction buyer shall not alienate or encumber the subject security property for a period of five weeks. Costs made easy.