9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 453X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he settled position of law, filing of the present petition is not bona fide. It is evident that the Petitioners have filed the present petition to overreach the recovery proceedings, wherein the Petitioners have been found to be liable to pay an amount of Rs. 2,74,31,840.37 as on 26th November, 2021 plus interest, so as to circumvent the provisions of statutory appeal. Petition dismissed. - HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MANMOHAN And HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA For the Petitioners : Mr. Harshit Anand, Mr. Rohan Poddar and Mr. Raghav Anand, Advocates For the Respondent : Ms. Usha Singh and Mr. Shahruk Inam, Advocates for R-1 JUDGMENT MANMOHAN , ACJ : ( ORAL ) 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 20th January, 2024 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal I, Delhi ( DRT ) in T.A. No. 165/2022 An application filed by the Petitioner under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act challenging the Notice issued by the Respondent under Section 13(2) and 13(4) of the said Act. allowing the said application and directing the Petitioners herein to pay to the Respondent No.1, within a period of 30 days, a sum of Rs. 2,74,31,840.37/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a sum of Rs. 2,74,31,840.37/- along with interest within 30 days; failing which it was directed that the said amount shall be recovered by Respondent No.1 from the sale of the secured asset and in case of shortfall, the balance to be recovered from sale of other assets of the Petitioners. The DRT-I further directed issuance of a recovery certificate in favour of the Respondent No.1. Admittedly, no appeal, as provided under Section 20 of the RDDB Act, has been filed against the said order dated 20th January, 2024. 2.5. It is stated that the notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and the order dated 22nd April, 2022, passed by the CMM were challenged by the Petitioners before DRT-I by filing an application TSA No. 599 of 2022 under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. However, the same has been dismissed by the DRT vide order dated 30th January, 2024. The DRT-I held that all mandatory procedures have been followed by Respondent No.1 as laid down under the SARFAESI Act for the recovery of its dues. The Petitioners herein have admittedly not availed the statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act against the said order. Arguments of the parties 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taining the Section 19 RDDB Act application in view of the pending SARFAESI Act proceedings. He states that SARFAESI being the more effective mechanism, the RDDB Act could not have been resorted to by the Respondent No. 1. He states that the intent of Transcore (supra) was not to make two recovery proceedings run parallelly. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5.1. A perusal of the submissions made by the Petitioner and the grounds in the petition show that the legal issue raised by the Petitioners is to the effect that whether the recovery proceedings initiated by Respondent No. 1 under the RDDB Act can be continued along with the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act simultaneously? 5.2. In our considered opinion, the said issue is no longer res-integra and has been so authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court in its judgments in Transcore (supra), a later judgment in Mathew Varghese v. M. Amritha Kumar and Ors. (2014) 5 SCC 610 and again in M.D. Frozen Foods Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. Hero Fincorp Ltd. (2017) 16 SCC 741 . 5.3. In Transcore (supra), the Supreme Court held that the provisions of RDDB Act are not inconsistent with the provisions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, as stated above, the NPA Act is an additional remedy to the DRT Act. Together they constitute one remedy and, therefore, the doctrine of election does not apply. Even according to Snell's Principles of Equity (31st Edn., p. 119), the doctrine of election of remedies is applicable only when there are two or more co-existent remedies available to the litigants at the time of election which are repugnant and inconsistent. In any event, there is no repugnancy nor inconsistency between the two remedies, therefore, the doctrine of election has no application. (emphasis added) 46. A reading of Section 37 discloses that the application of the SARFAESI Act will be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of the RDDB Act. In other words, it will not in any way nullify or annul or impair the effect of the provisions of the RDDB Act. We are also fortified by our above statement of law as the heading of the said section also makes the position clear that application of other laws are not barred. The effect of Section 37 would, therefore, be that in addition to the provisions contained under the SARFAESI Act, in respect of proceedings initiated under the said Act, it will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f election of remedy. 32. The aforesaid is not a case of election of remedies as was sought to be canvassed by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, since the alternatives are between a civil court, Arbitral Tribunal or a Debt Recovery Tribunal constituted under the RDDB Act. Insofar as that election is concerned, the mode of settlement of disputes to an Arbitral Tribunal has been elected. The provisions of the SARFAESI Act are thus, a remedy in addition to the provisions of the Arbitration Act. In Transcore v. Union of India [Transcore v. Union of India, (2008) 1 SCC 125 : (2008) 1 SCC (Civ) 116] it was clearly observed that the SARFAESI Act was enacted to regulate securitisation and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest and for matters connected therewith. Liquidation of secured interest through a more expeditious procedure is what has been envisaged under the SARFAESI Act and the two Acts are cumulative remedies to the secured creditors. 33. Sarfaesi proceedings are in the nature of enforcement proceedings, while arbitration is an adjudicatory process. In the event that the secured assets are insufficient to satisfy the debts, the secur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
