Microlite Industries(Borrower) vs Indian Bank Represented By Its Authorized Officer

Gopinath P., J

The petitioners have approached this Court being aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against the petitioners under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to recover amounts due from the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that the proceedings initiated by the Bank are illegal and contrary to the provisions under the SARFAESI Act.

The petitioners have already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing S.A. No.32/2022 and the same is pending consideration. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that one among the secured assets was brought to sale and the sale was confirmed in favour of the additional 3rd respondent in an illegal manner. It is pointed out that the sale was confirmed in favour of the additional 3rd respondent in three days after the sale was held. It is submitted that though the petitioners pointed out the said illegality in the Securitisation Application filed before the Tribunal, Securitisation Application has not been heard.

On a pointed question from the Court as to what kind of interim relief the petitioners expect, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the possession of the residential apartment which was sold by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act is still with the petitioners.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank and learned counsel for the additional 3rd respondent/auction purchaser vehemently oppose the grant of any relief to the petitioners. It is submitted that the liability is huge and there is absolutely no illegality in the procedure adopted by the Bank to bring the property in question to sale. It is submitted that the Bank has initiated steps under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to obtain physical possession of the asset, which has been sold and orders have been obtained for taking physical possession. It is submitted that the Securitisation Application has not even been amended challenging proceedings under Section 14 and that despite the sale being confirmed nearly nine months ago, the Bank has not been able to put the purchaser in possession. It is submitted that the residential apartment in question is not one where any of the petitioners are staying and the apartment is in a locked condition. It is submitted that absolutely no prejudice will be caused to the petitioners, if the petitioners are relegated their remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank and the learned counsel appearing for additional 3rd respondent/auction purchaser, I am of the view that the there is considerable merit in the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the Bank and the learned counsel for the additional 3rd respondent/auction purchaser. It cannot be disputed that the asset, which is the subject matter of the present original petition has already been sold in the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The auction purchaser has already remitted the entire amount and the sale certificate is also stated to have been issued in his favour. The petitioners are already before the Debts Recovery Tribunal challenging the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act. The stage of the proceedings being as noticed above, there is no interim relief that can be granted to the petitioners to protect the interest of the petitioners pending consideration of the matter by the Debts Recovery Tribunal. If any of the proceedings initiated by the Bank are illegal, the petitioners will be entitled to appropriate reliefs from the Debts Recovery Tribunal. There is no reason to keep this original petition pending as I do not see any jurisdictional error or other illegality committed by the Tribunal in considering the Securitisation Application filed by the petitioners, warranting exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

Original petition fails, it is accordingly dismissed. This will however be without prejudice to any contention taken by the petitioners in this original petition. It will be open for the petitioners to raise all their contentions before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.