AMISH JAIN & ORS Vs. ICICI BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present LPAs have arisen out of the impugned common order dated 04.02.2016 passed in W.P.(C) Nos.9383/2015, 9317/2015, 8516/2015 and 858/2016. In all these writ petitions, common issue was; whether the Delhi High Court has the territorial jurisdiction and whether the writ petitions were not maintainable because an equally efficacious remedy was available to the petitioners. In these writ petitions, the appellant has challenged the demand notices dated 09.07.2012, 30.08.2011 and 31.05.2011 under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the SARFAESI Act"), notices dated 20.08.2013 and 30.04.2012 under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act and notice dated 25.08.2012 under the SARFAESI Act and also claimed the handing over the original copy of the mortgaged title deed of the property situated at Meerut and also claimed compensation.

(2.) The undisputed facts are that the appellants took home loan against the mortgage of the property, situated at Meerut from the Meerut Branch of the respondent/Bank. The appellants are also resident of Meerut. They had failed to repay the loan amount and proceedings under the SARFAESI Act started against them by the respondent/Bank at Meerut pursuant to demand notices dated 09.07.2012, 30.08.2012 and 31.05.2011 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and possession notices dated 20.08.2013 and 30.04.2014 under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act. The appellants had duly participated in those proceedings. The appellants, however, invoked the jurisdiction of DRT-III, Delhi by filing S.A. No.330/2012 u/s 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. DRT-III rejected the above S.A. on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings since no part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi as the petitioners were residents of outside Delhi and obtained loan from a branch of the respondent/Bank at Meerut which was repayable at Meerut and the property was mortgaged at Meerut. The DRT further held that the mere issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act by the Jhandewalan Branch of the respondent/Bank would not vest the DRT, Delhi with jurisdiction. This order of DRT was challenged by the appellants invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court. The said order of DRT was upheld by the Full Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3957/2012 vide order dated 13.09.201 The SLP(C) No.33516/2012 against the order dated 13.09.2012 was withdrawn by the appellants and it was dismissed as withdrawn by the Apex Court vide order dated 20.07.2015. Therefore, the issue which has been raised before us in these LPAs that is whether the Courts/Tribunals at Delhi have the territorial jurisdiction in respect of the disputes arising out of the home loan taken by the appellants at Meerut against the mortgaged property situated at Meerut and when the appellants themselves are residents of Meerut, has attained finality. The contentions of the appellants in the earlier challenges that the issuance of notice by the Bank from its Delhi branch confers jurisdiction upon the Courts/Tribunals of Delhi was also rejected and has attained finality on the withdrawal of the SLP by the appellants. Admittedly, the appellants also approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by way of writ petition bearing W.P.(C) Nos.1056/2015, 3205/2015 and 535/2015, but the said petitions were withdrawn with liberty to take appropriate actions. The appellants have not disclosed either in the writ petition or in the present appeal as to their contentions before the Apex Court in these writ petitions which they have subsequently withdrawn.

(3.) Thereafter, these writ petitions in which the impugned order has been passed have been filed by the appellants wherein the appellants had challenged the actions of respondent/Bank under Section 13(2), 13(4) and 14 of SARFAESI Act, culminating in the passing of the impugned order. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has, after considering the contentions of the appellants and the respondent has given his finding as under:-