2018 (10) TMI 1953 - SC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction - power of High Courts to entertain matters which arise under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) - HELD THAT - The writ petition, in this case, being not maintainable, obviously, all orders passed must perish, including the impugned order, which is set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: High Courts entertaining matters under SARFAESI Act and granting interim orders to NPAs despite settled legal position.

In this judgment by the Supreme Court, the court addressed the issue of High Courts continuing to entertain matters under the SARFAESI Act and granting interim orders to Non-Performing Assets (NPAs) despite settled legal positions. The court highlighted that despite previous judgments, including one by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha, High Courts persist in granting such orders. The court emphasized that the writ petition itself was not maintainable, citing precedents like Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd., where it was deemed judicial impropriety for subordinate courts to ignore settled legal positions. The court reiterated the importance of adhering to established legal principles and criticized the tendency of granting unwarranted relief. Consequently, the court held that the writ petition in this case was not maintainable, leading to the setting aside of all orders passed, including the impugned order. The appeals were allowed accordingly, and pending applications were disposed of.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of respecting settled legal positions and avoiding judicial adventurism. It underscores the need for adherence to established legal principles and discourages the granting of unwarranted relief, especially in matters concerning the SARFAESI Act and NPAs. The court's decision to set aside the impugned order and deem the writ petition not maintainable reinforces the significance of upholding judicial propriety and following established legal precedents. The judgment provides clarity on the consequences of disregarding settled legal positions and emphasizes the need for consistency and adherence to legal principles in judicial decisions.