Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 10685/2016 & C.M.No.7669/2017, 12705/2017 &
43019/2017
Date of Decision: 26th September, 2018 ARUN KUMAR JAIN & ORS ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Anish Jain, petitioner No.3.
Through: Mr.Anil Dabas, Adv. with Mr.Praveen Kumar, Adv. for R-1/UOI.
Ms.Suruchi Aggarwal, Adv. for R-3.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
JUDGMENT
1. Challenge in this writ petition is made to the various orders dated 06.08.2016, 18.08.2016 and 23.09.2016 passed by the Recovery Officer and certain orders earlier passed issuing recovery certificates on 04.03.2003 and 07.03.2003.
2. Against the aforesaid orders passed, the petitioners have statutory remedy of appeal under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore & Anr. Vs. Mathew K.C.; Civil Appeal No.1281/2018 decided on 30th January, 2018 in paragraphs 18 and 19 has discussed the issue with regard to exercise of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 in the following manner:- “18. We cannot help but disapprove the approach of the High 2018:DHC:6242-DB W.P.(C) 10685/2016 Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. and Another, 1997 (6) SCC 450, observing:-
19. The impugned orders are therefore contrary to the law laid down by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution and unsustainable. They are therefore set aside and the appeal is allowed.”
3. In view of the above, it is clear that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the aforesaid orders is not maintainable before this Court.
4. We, therefore, see no reason to make indulgence into the matter. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed along with the pending applications.
CHIEF JUSTICE SEPTEMBER 26, 2018/‘anb’ V. KAMESWAR RAO, J