2024 (12) TMI 1461 - HC - IBC

Maintainability of petition - applicability of principle of estoppel - Constitutinal validity - Sections 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 19 of the RDB Act, and Sections 7, 9, 10, and 95 of the IBC - jurisdictional bars under Section 34 of the RDB Act, Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, and Section 63 of the IBC - benefits of Sections 7 and 8 of the MSMED Act of 2006 - HELD THAT - All the petitions have been filed by the same counsel and, therefore, the petitioners have full knowledge that such repeated petitions have been filed before different High Courts, with identical prayers. It is further found that although in paragraph nos.77 and 78 of the present petition, such facts have been disclosed, still it can be said that the petitioners are trying to somehow get an order in their favour by filing different petitions, with same prayers before the different High Courts. The present petition is dismissed, with a cost of Rs.1 lac (Rupees One Lac) upon the petitioners, which the petitioners shall deposit with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of one month from today. On deposit of such cost, it shall be transmitted to the account of the High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions presented and considered by the High Court in this judgment include:

Whether Sections 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 19 of the RDB Act, and Sections 7, 9, 10, and 95 of the IBC are unconstitutional, ultra vires, and void.
Whether the jurisdictional bars under Section 34 of the RDB Act, Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, and Section 63 of the IBC are unconstitutional.
Whether the MSMED Act provides immunity to MSMEs from recovery proceedings under other financial recovery laws.
Whether the absence of a special tribunal under the MSMED Act ousts the jurisdiction of Civil Courts.
Whether the recovery actions initiated by the Respondent Bank under the SARFAESI Act are illegal and void.
Whether the Petitioners are entitled to compensation from the Respondent Bank for alleged breaches and negligence.
Whether the RBI guidelines on declaring a borrower as a willful defaulter are lawful.
Whether the failure of the Central Government/RBI to implement the MSMED notification amounts to a statutory breach.
Whether the petitioners can seek injunctive relief against recovery actions and classification of accounts as NPA.
Whether the repeated filing of similar petitions in different courts constitutes an abuse of process.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Constitutionality of Financial Recovery Laws

Legal Framework: The SARFAESI Act, RDB Act, and IBC are legislative measures for financial recovery.
Court's Interpretation: The court did not directly address the constitutionality but noted existing challenges in another pending petition.
Evidence and Findings: The petitioners argued these laws are one-sided favoring banks.
Application of Law: The court deferred detailed examination pending other proceedings.
Competing Arguments: The respondent argued the laws are valid and necessary for financial stability.
Conclusion: The court did not rule on constitutionality at this stage.

Issue 2: Jurisdictional Bars on Civil Courts

Legal Framework: Specific sections of the SARFAESI Act and RDB Act restrict civil court jurisdiction.
Court's Interpretation: The court noted the legislative intent to streamline financial disputes through specialized tribunals.
Evidence and Findings: Petitioners claimed these bars are unconstitutional.
Application of Law: The court did not provide a definitive ruling on this issue.
Competing Arguments: Respondents argued these provisions are integral to the efficiency of financial recovery.
Conclusion: No conclusive decision was made on jurisdictional bars.

Issue 3: MSMED Act and Recovery Proceedings

Legal Framework: The MSMED Act provides certain protections to MSMEs.
Court's Interpretation: The court noted the argument but did not provide a detailed analysis.
Evidence and Findings: Petitioners argued MSMED Act should prevail over other recovery laws.
Application of Law: The court did not rule on the precedence of the MSMED Act.
Competing Arguments: Respondents maintained the applicability of recovery laws.
Conclusion: The issue remains unresolved in this judgment.

Issue 4: Absence of Special Tribunal under MSMED Act

Legal Framework: The MSMED Act does not establish a special tribunal.
Court's Interpretation: The court did not address this issue directly.
Evidence and Findings: Petitioners argued this absence should not oust civil court jurisdiction.
Application of Law: The court deferred the issue.
Competing Arguments: Respondents did not focus on this point.
Conclusion: No ruling was made on this jurisdictional issue.

Issue 5: Legality of Recovery Actions by Respondent Bank

Legal Framework: Recovery actions under SARFAESI Act.
Court's Interpretation: The court noted procedural aspects but did not invalidate actions.
Evidence and Findings: Petitioners claimed actions were illegal.
Application of Law: The court allowed proceedings to continue.
Competing Arguments: Respondents argued actions were lawful.
Conclusion: Recovery actions were not halted by the court.

Issue 6: Compensation for Alleged Breaches

Legal Framework: Tort and contract law principles.
Court's Interpretation: The court did not address compensation claims.
Evidence and Findings: Petitioners sought compensation for alleged breaches.
Application of Law: The court deferred this issue.
Competing Arguments: Respondents denied liability.
Conclusion: Compensation claims remain unresolved.

Issue 7: RBI Guidelines on Willful Defaulters

Legal Framework: RBI guidelines for financial institutions.
Court's Interpretation: The court did not rule on the validity of these guidelines.
Evidence and Findings: Petitioners challenged the legality of being declared willful defaulters.
Application of Law: The court deferred this issue.
Competing Arguments: Respondents supported the guidelines.
Conclusion: No decision was made on this issue.

Issue 8: Implementation of MSMED Notification

Legal Framework: MSMED notification and Banking Regulation Act.
Court's Interpretation: The court noted the argument but did not provide a ruling.
Evidence and Findings: Petitioners claimed non-implementation was a statutory breach.
Application of Law: The court did not address compliance issues.
Competing Arguments: Respondents did not focus on this point.
Conclusion: The issue remains unresolved.

Issue 9: Injunctive Relief Against Recovery Actions

Legal Framework: Principles of injunctive relief.
Court's Interpretation: The court rejected the stay application.
Evidence and Findings: Petitioners sought to halt recovery actions.
Application of Law: The court allowed recovery actions to proceed.
Competing Arguments: Respondents argued for continuation of actions.
Conclusion: Injunctive relief was denied.

Issue 10: Abuse of Process through Repeated Filings

Legal Framework: Principles of res judicata and abuse of process.
Court's Interpretation: The court found the repeated filings to be an abuse of process.
Evidence and Findings: Petitioners filed similar petitions in multiple courts.
Application of Law: The court dismissed the petition with costs.
Competing Arguments: Petitioners argued against estoppel.
Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition and imposed costs.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The court found that the petitioners were engaging in an abuse of process by filing similar petitions across different jurisdictions.
The court held that "all grounds of challenge being raised now were available to the petitioners at the earlier stage."
The court imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the petitioners for the abuse of process, to be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee.
The court allowed the respondents to proceed with recovery actions in accordance with the law.

The judgment highlights the court's focus on procedural propriety and the importance of not abusing the judicial process by filing repetitive petitions. The court emphasized the need for litigants to pursue their claims through appropriate and singular channels rather than engaging in forum shopping or duplicative litigation.

← Previous Next →