Ketan Shah Industries Limited And ANR. v. The Authorised Officer (State Bank Of India) And ANR.

Diksha Rane

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 17851 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2396 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 17851 OF 2021 M/s. Ketan Shah Industries Limited & anr.

..Petitioners vs.

The Authorised Officer, State Bank of India & anr.

..Respondents ------------ Mr. Rajesh Nagory a/w. Mr. Vinod Kothari and Mr. Priyansh Jain i/b. M/s. Apex Law Partners for the petitioners/applicants.

Mr. Prakash Shinde a/w. Niyati Merchant i/b. MDP & Partners for respondent No.2-Bank.

------------ C0RAM : DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & M. S. KARNIK, J.

DATE: OCTOBER 28, 2021 P.C. :

This writ petition is directed against two orders of the same date, i.e., August 9, 2021, passed by the Presiding Officer, the Debts Recovery Tribunal No.2, Mumbai, on Interlocutory Application No. 745 of 2021 and Interlocutory Application No.746 of 2021. By the first order, the Presiding Officer declined to entertain Interlocutory Application No. 1/3

745 of 2021 on the ground that the petitioners have repeatedly failed to comply with the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) as well as an order passed by this Court, dated May 16, 2017, May 19, 2017 and March 27, 2018. By the other order, Interlocutory Application No. 746 of 2021 being an application for amendment was rejected with liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh application under Section 17 (1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ('SARFAESI Act'). 2.

This writ petition was presented before this Court on August 12, 2021. We are informed by Mr. Shinde, learned advocate for the secured creditor/bank that the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal was functional on such date and thereafter. There could be no reason as to why the petitioners, instead of approaching the Appellate Tribunal, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court.

3.

The objection has substance. Even otherwise, since liberty has been granted to the petitioners to file a fresh application under Section 17 (1) of the SARFAESI Act, we 2/3

do not see any reason to hold that any right of the petitioners has been infringed so as to attract judicial review. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to pursue legal remedies in accordance with law. 4.

In view of the aforesaid order, Interim Application No. 2396 of 2021 is also disposed of.

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) Digitally signed by DIKSHA DINESH RANE Date:

2021.10.28 21:29:24 +0530 DIKSHA DINESH RANE 3/3