Vijay Verma HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AEWPUR rit Petitio_n_&) N01 221 5 of 29¢? Petitionef Versus mm Dena Bank, a banking company duly incorporated under the relevant provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of, Underhkings) Act, 1980 M Post for order on I 7 April, 2001 l i \ i i Mfr Sdl— ‘ Judge Satish K. Agnihotri @ HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OHtIATTISGARH : BILA§PHR Writ Petition Le) No. 2215 of 2007 Petitioner : Vijay Verma, son of Shri Parmeshwar Lal Verma, aged about 45 years, resident of Ramnivas. P.P. Compiex. Ranchi (Jharkhand) Versus Respondent : Dena Bank, a banking company duiy incorporated under the relevant provisions of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of' Undertakings) Act, 1980 having inter- alia amongst other branches a branch office at Jawahar Nagar, Raipur, through the General Manager, Dena Bank, Jawahar Nagar, Raipurf 5.8.: PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 2261227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Hon'ble Justice Shri Satish K. Agnihotri Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava. Advocate tor the rospondent ORDER (Passed on this f7’3a'y ofAprii, 2007) 1. The petitioner, by this petition, seeks following reliefs:- A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue commanding and directing the respondent bank authorities to produce before this Hon'ble Court all the relevant records for perusal of this Hon’ble Court. A Writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue commending and directing the respondent bank authorities to constitute an intemal mechanism for the consideration of the replies of the borrowers in an objective manner as per the judgment of the Hon'bie Apex Court in the matter of Mardia Chemicals (supra) anditill consideration by the said committee the bank authorities be restrained from taking drastic measures of- \ i dispossession‘ and sale of the property in possession of the borrower as tenant of the petitioner. c. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue commanding and directing the» respondent bank authorities to assess the market vaiue of-the said property of the petitioner and on payment thereof the bank authorities may be restrained from dispossessing and selling the said property belonging to the petitioner. The indisputable facts, in nutshell‘ are that the petitioner namely, Vijay Verma is the ovmer of the shop No. 86, situated at Jairam Complex. Sharda Chowk, Raipur. In the year 1984. Verma Group Private Limited took the shop for'running a unit of M/s. Aiankar Jewellers Group Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Unit’). The Unit had borrowed a Cash Credit Hypotheoation (OCH) Limit from the respondent Bank to e the tune of Rs. 2 crores. Mr. Sanjay Vanna and Smt. Annapurna Verma are the Directors of the said unit. The petitioner ls the guarantor of the CCH Limit availed by the Unit. When the Unit failed to discharge its liability under the CCH Limit. their account was deolamd as Non Performing Asset (NPA) as per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines dared 319‘ December. 2006. The said Unit wasissued a- notioe dared 4‘“ January. 2007 by the respondent Bank under the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and, Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2002') and the notices were issued to both the Directors of the Unit namely. Mr. Madhuri Verma and Vijay Vanna (the petitioner) aiso. The Directors submitted their reply (Annexure P/5) stating the reasons. After having considered the reply med by the directors, the respondent Bank by its letter dawd 17.3.2007 (Annexure PIS) dismissed the points/objecdons raised by the directors and acting as “secured Creditor", called upon the directots to immediateiy deposit Rs. 210.23 Lacs alongwith applicable interest. with Jawahar Nagar Branch. of the respondent/Bank, failing which itwas clearly stated thatathe‘respondent Bank would be compelled to initiate enforcementraction against M/s Alankar under SARFAESI Ad, 2002-, which will‘inciude. the hkingof possession and sale of the Prime & Collateral ‘Securitiesat an early date. Being aggrieved, the petitioner. who is the guarantorto the Unit, tiled this petition for several reliefs, as stated'above; Section 17 of the Act; 2002 provides for an appeat to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-fwe days. The petitioner, without availing. the said statutory remedy. has, approached this Court directly with the plea that the petitioner has to deposit 75% of the totai amount and the tribunal is not regulatiy working. The Supreme Court in the case of State of H.P. and others vs. Gujarat Amhuja CementLtd. and another' heid as under:- “1 7. We shall‘tirst deal with the plea regardingvalternative remedy as raised by the appellantState; Except fot a period when Article 226 was amended by r the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act. 1976, the power relah‘ng to alternative. remedy ‘ has been considered to be a rule of self-impoad limitation ...... " In the matter of L.K. Verma vs. HMT Ltd. and anotherz, the supreme Court has further held as under:- “20. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Atticle 226 of the Constitution, in a given case although may not entertain a writ petition inter alia on the ground of availability of an altemative remedy, but the said rule cannot be said to be of universal application. Despite existence of an altemative remedy. a writ court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction of judicial , review inter alia in cases where the court or the mbunal lacks 1. 2. —.-_..~‘ (2005) 6 scc 499 (2006) 2 scc 259