MAXIM TRADERS PVT LTD Vs. HDFC BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is called in aid by the petitioners to challenge Ext. P8 interim order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal in IA No. 2029/2013 in SA No. 507/2013. SA No. 507/2013 has been filed by the petitioners under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act challenging the measures taken by the second respondent bank to enforce the security interest. The security interest is a BMW car bearing Reg. No. KL 07 BP 5005 for which a loan of about Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy five lakhs only) was availed by the petitioners. The Debts Recovery Tribunal passed Ext. P7 order dated 11/07/2013 in IA No. 2030/2013 in SA No. 507/2013. The relevant portion of the order is extracted herein below.

(2.) Ext. P8 order impugned in this Writ Petition declines the prayer of the petitioners to de-freeze the current account (No. 15132000000955) maintained by the petitioners in the second respondent bank. The petitioners lament that there is no necessity to de-freeze their current account when the Debts Recovery Tribunal has passed a conditional order of stay as evident by Ext. P7 order. I find force in the submission since there is no necessity to freeze the current account when the petitioner is eager and willing to comply with Ext. P7 conditional order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. I should note that the present Writ Petition relates only to the loan account No. 16391783 and no coercive steps shall be taken in respect of that loan account in view of Ext. P7 conditional order of stay. The stand of the Debts Recovery Tribunal that it has no jurisdiction to direct de-freezing of the account under the SARFAESI Act is palpably wrong and Ext. P8 order passed declining the prayer of the petitioners in this regard is wholly unreasonable. Ext. P8 order suffers from an error of jurisdiction apparent on the face of the record and is liable to be set at naught. I do so and allow IA No. 2029/2013 in SA No. 507/2013 on the file of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The petitioners lament that a sum of Rs. 34,29,821.89 has been un- authorisedly appropriated by the second respondent bank from current account maintained by the petitioners and that too after Ext. P7 conditional order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal. It is upto the petitioners to move the Debts Recovery Tribunal by proceeding in contempt or for a direction to the second respondent bank to put the money back in the current account. This Writ Petition does not deal with any other loan transaction of the petitioners with the second respondent bank and is confined to loan account No. 16391783 only. The contention of the second respondent that a Writ Petition against a scheduled bank will not lie is puerile since only the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against Ext. P8 interim order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal is invoked.