Dr Pallavi Yadav & Anr. v. Vijaya Bank & Ors.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 19.05.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, in C.M. No. 16621 of 2021 in Writ Petition NO. 5073 of 2019, dismissing the application for interim relief filed by the appellants herein.

2. In the said application, the appellants had prayed for the following reliefs:- “a. stay the operation of notice dated 06.04.2021 issued by chief manager/authorised officer of Bank of Baroda 2021:DHC:1845-DB by issuing direction to the bank to accept the offer made by the petitioners and C.M. NO. 3298 of 2020 be taken up for hearing with this application and consider the reliefs as sought for in the writ petition including the closing of account qua the Petitioners/guarantors and further directions be issued for releasing the property no. A-154, 3rd Floor, Block-A, Sector - 8, Dwarka, New Delhi, owned by Petitioner no.1. b. to take the steps for selling of the mortgage property owned by principal borrowers Max Life Care Pvt. Ltd. namely:i. Hospital equipment, machineries, furniture and fixtures, ambulance etc. ii. current assets consisting of stocks of medicines and other medical equipments and book debts and iii. recover the amount of L.I.C. Policy NO. 127472843 dated 21.2.2015 in the name of Mr.Nitender Singh with a single premium paid of Rs.10,9,800/- and sum assured of Rs. 17,00,000/-. c. to disclose the amount lying in the current A/C. 600200301000704 of the Principal borrower Max Life Care Pvt. Ltd. and adjust the amount lying therein towards the loan amount.”

3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the remedy under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, (‘SARFAESI Act’) is not available against a notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act. He further submits that in the present case, an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs had been deposited by the principal borrower with the respondent-Bank, which has not been taken into account by the respondents while issuing the notice dated 06.04.2021. He submits that only an amount of approximately Rs. 11 lakhs would be payable if complete accounts are rendered by the respondents against the loan account. He has taken us through the list of dates wherein the calculation of the amount due according to the appellants has been worked out.

4. The above submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants have been refuted by the learned counsel for the respondents, who submits that this is yet another attempt of the appellants to somehow halt the recovery procedure adopted by the respondent-Bank. He further submits that on any action being taken by the respondents under Section 13(4) of the Act, the appellants shall always be at liberty to invoke the statutory remedy provided under the SARFAESI Act.

5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. The learned Single Judge in the Impugned Order, placing reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court has rightly observed that the High Court should be circumspect in entertaining Writ Petitions on issues that are to be adjudicated before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the SARFAESI Act. The findings of the learned Single Judge in this regard, are as under:-