Kiran Sharda v. Uco Bank Ludhiana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 13.10.2023 Kiran Sharda ....Petitioner

VERSUS

UCO Bank Ludhiana ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE RITU TAGORE

Present:

Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Ravi Chadda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate for the respondent - Bank. -.- LISA GILL, J. (Oral) 1.

Prayer in this writ petition is for setting aside notice dated 10.05.2013 (Annexure P-5) under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'SARFAESI Act') and notice dated 09.10.2020 (Annexure P-9) issued by Tehsildar Ludhiana (South)-cum-Executive Magistrate, Ludhiana. There is a further prayer for issuance of directions to respondent - Bank to settle the account of the petitioner. 2.

It is submitted that husband of the petitioner (since deceased) as well as petitioner availed of loan facility from the respondent-Bank on 11.05.2007. Taking advice of officials of respondent - Bank, an application dated 10.09.2007 was submitted by the petitioner and her husband (since deceased) for membership of UCO Griha Lakshmi Yojana Scheme from the Bank for the purpose of insuring loan amount in the event of demise of

-2either of the applicants. Unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner passed away on 21.04.2013 on account of which there was financial indiscipline and account was declared Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 10.05.2013. Proceedings under SARFAESI Act were initiated against the petitioners. An application was filed by son of the petitioner bringing to notice that loan in question was covered under the UCO Griha Lakshmi Yojana Scheme, therefore, necessary action should be taken by respondent-Bank for settlement of the account. It is submitted that in an absolutely illegal manner respondent - Bank took a stand that the scheme is not applicable to the present loan account for reasons as have been detailed in para No.5 of the written statement.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that proceedings under SARFAESI Act initiated against the petitioner are absolutely illegal, arbitrary and totally unjustified in view of the fact that loan in question was insured and it was the duty of the Bank to settle the account.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondent while raising an objection of entertainability of this writ petition submitted that action taken by the respondent - Bank is in accordance with law and that benefit under the said Scheme was not made out. Dismissal of the writ petition is sought. 5.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 6.

It is settled position of law that SARFAESI Act is a complete code in itself. Interference by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction of

-3Article 226 of the Constitution of India is minimal and has to be exercised only in exceptional and extra-ordinary circumstances. 7.

-4-

-59.

Specific objection qua entertainability of this writ petition has been raised. A specific objection has been taken by learned counsel for the respondent - Bank that the remedy of the petitioner was before the learned DRT. It is undeniable that the petitioner is entitled to efficacious remedy for redressal of grievance in terms of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. No exceptional or extraordinary has been pointed out before us, which would call for interference or any such circumstances, which cannot be looked into by the learned Tribunal.

10.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances as afore-stated, the petitioner is relegated to its remedy before the learned DRT 11.

With the afore-said observations, the present petition is disposed of.

12.

(LISA GILL) JUDGE October 13, 2023 (RITU TAGORE) tripti JUDGE NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : YES/NO