Alm Industries Limited vs Learned Debts Recovery Tribunal & Others

Pankaj Purohit, J

By means of the present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the proceedings initiated by the respondent Bank under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 before the learned Additional District Magistrate, Saharanpur, being Case No.236 of 2026 (contained as Annexure No.2, Page No.43 to 69 of the writ petition).

(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Bank to strictly comply with the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by learned Debts Recovery Tribunal Dehradun in Case No.SA-68 of 2025 "ALM Industries Ltd. and others vs. Central Bank of India.

(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Bank not to proceed with the application under Section 14 of the Act of 2002 before the learned Additional District Magistrate, Saharanpur, being Case No.236 of 2026."

The facts in brief are that the petitioner- Company availed a financial loan of Rs.172,50,00,000/- from the Saharanpur Branch of Central Bank of India. As the petitioner-company suffered huge financial losses a demand notice under Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the Act, 2002") was issued to the petitioner stating that as the account of petitioner-company has been declared as a Non- performing asset on 15.10.2024 and there is an outstanding amount of Rs.183,62,50,217.17/- is due. The petitioner submitted a detailed objection to the aforesaid demand notice under Section 13 (3A) of the Act, 2002. The respondent-Bank in spite of the objections even without going through them disposed it and issued a possession notice under Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2002. The aggrieved petitioner thereafter approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun challenging the measures taken by respondent-Bank. The learned Tribunal observed that respondent-Bank had issued the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, 2002 without deciding the objections made by petitioner under Section 13 (3A) of the Act, 2002 vide order dated 17.09.2025. Against this order, a regular appeal (diary no.2176 of 2025) was filed by the Bank before the learned Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad. Parallely, the Bank instead of pursuing the appeal filed an application under Section 14 of the Act, 2002 bearing Case No.236 of 2026 before the Additional District Magistrate, Saharanpur for forcibly taking possession of the properties (secured assets) of the petitioner. The ADM has fixed 04.05.2026 as the date for passing orders for forcibly taking possession of the properties of the petitioner.

At the very outset, the respondent-Bank's Advocate objected to the petition on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction.

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court has jurisdiction as the cause of action partly arose in Dehradun i.e. Uttarakhand. He also submits that the order was passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun and, therefore, this Court has the requisite territorial jurisdiction. He stated that Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India confers requisite territorial jurisdiction to the High Court.

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner also relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma vs. Union of India & others; reported in (2014) 9 SCC 329 and in the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra & others; reported in (2000) 7 SCC 640.

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submitted that this Court is devoid of territorial jurisdiction because the loan was issued by Bank situated at Saharanpur, State of U.P. He also submitted that the petitioner-company is also situated at Saharanpur; secured assets are there in Saharanpur, State of U.P. and merely because the order has been passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal, Dehradun, this in itself no way means that the cause of action arose within territorial jurisdiction of High Court of Uttarakhand.

Heard. Perused the records of the writ petition and the judgments cited by the petitioner carefully. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the petitioner perusal of Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India is needed, which is reproduced herein below:-

"226. Power of High Courts to issue certain writs.-

(1).........................................................

(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such person is not within those territories."

Having considered the provisions of the Constitution of India quote above along with the facts of the case in hand, this Court is of the opinion that on a plain reading of the provisions in clause (2), it is clear that the High Court can issue a writ when the person or the authority against whom the writ is issued is located outside its territorial jurisdiction, if the cause of action wholly or partially arises within the court's territorial jurisdiction. Cause of action for the purpose of Article 226(2) of the Constitution, for all intent and purpose must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The expression cause of action has not been defined either in the Code of Civil Procedure or the Constitution. But, as a matter of fact, now cause of action is considered as bundle of facts which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in the suit before he can succeed.

Cause of action in this case is the lending of money by the Bank and non-payment of the same by the petitioner-company. This transaction occurred in Saharanpur i.e. State of U.P., therefore, for all purposes, the cause of action arose in the State of U.P. and this Court does not have any territorial jurisdiction for cause of action arising in Saharanpur. The cases relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner are of no use as both the cases unequivocally mandates that the High Court will have territorial jurisdiction, only if the cause of action wholly or in part arises in its territory. In this case no cause of action even partially arose within the territory of the State of Uttarakhand, merely saying that the D.R.T. Dehradun has passed the order, no jurisdiction would be conferred to this High Court to entertain the writ petition. It is made clear that within the jurisdiction of D.R.T. Dehradun State of Uttar Pradesh also falls. Further petitioner-Company has its registered office in Delhi.

For the aforesaid reasons for lack of territorial jurisdiction, therefore, the writ petition cannot be entertained by this Court and is hereby dismissed in limine.