M/s Ganesh Ram Dokania APartnership firm, incorporated under the Partnership Act, having v. UCO Bank having its Head Office at No. 10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s For the Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY CAV JUDGMENT Mr. Sanjay Singh Thakur Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey : : Date : 07-10-2024 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed for the following relief(s):- “(a) A writ of and/ or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the Respondents, particularly the Respondent nos. 2 to 4 that the classification of the account of the Petitioner as NPA as on 31.07.2021 is violative of compliance of Clause 2.1.2 of the Master Circular of the Reserve Bank of India dated July 1, 2015, on prudential norms on income recognition and asset classification and provisioning pertaining to advances. (b) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the Respondents, Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2024 dt.07-10-2024 particularly the Respondent nos. 2 to 4 to effect removal of the account of the Petitioner firm from the relegated status of NPA in pursuance to the executed letter dated 25th October 2022 being Annexure "L" to the instant writ application. (c) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the Respondents, particularly the Respondent nos. 2 to 4 to regularize the accounts of the Petitioner and quash and/or set aside the classification of the Petitioner's account as Non-Perform Asset dated 31.07.2021 when the loan account is within limit even as on date and even on 31/07/2021 the loan account was within limit. (d) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue commanding the Respondents, particularly the Respondent nos. 2 to 4 not to give further effect to the demand notice dated 02.09.2023 being Annexure "M" hereof in any manner whatsoever. (e) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue to pass order directing Respondent bank to refund excess interest charged by capitalization of penal interest against settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled Punjab & Sind Bank V/s Allied Beverage Company Pvt. Ltd.& ors.; (f) A Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue to pass order directing Respondent bank to refund excess interest charged and such reversal was done by the Respondent bank once on 12/08/2011 of Rs.3,97,143/- and again on 06/06/2014 of Rs.33,78,451/- mentioned for the period 01/01/2014 to 31/05/2014 but even thereafter the bank kept charging excess interest as the Respondent bank is in habit of doing so; (g) A writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of prohibition do issue restraining the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 from taking any step and/or measures and/or further steps or measures and/or initiating any action and/or further action based on the classification of the account of the Petitioner as NPA as on 31.07.2021. (h) Writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari do issue directing the Respondent Authorities to certify and transmit all records Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2024 dt.07-10-2024 pertaining to the instant case before this Hon'ble Court for proper adjudication thereof. (i) Writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus do issue directing the Respondent Authorities as to why the Respondent Bank violated the RBI guidelines pertaining to prudential norms which required application on interest in a separate account called memorandum of account and should not debit the loan account as per norms 25.1.2.3 dated-01/07/2013. (j) Rule NISI in terms of prayers above. (k) Interim orders restraining the Respondents especially the Respondent nos. 2 to 4 from taking any further coercive steps and/or measures till the disposal of the Writ application. (l) Ad interim order in terms of prayer (h) above; (m) Such further or other order or orders be passed and/lor direction or directions be given as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of the respondent-Bank in declaring the accounts of the petitioner as Non Performing Assets (NPA) and thereafter, initiating the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 (hereinafter as the Act). Though the learned counsel has argued at length with regard to the various lapses and violations done by the respondent-Bank in declaring the account of the petitioner as NPA and has relied on various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the guidelines/ circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of the case as the Bank has already issued notice under Section 13(2) & 13(4) of the Act and the subject property has been sold and the petitioner Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2024 dt.07-10-2024 has an effective and alternate remedy of approaching the DRT under Section 17 of the Act.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr. Etc. Etc. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320 has held as under; “13. In view of the fair stand taken by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants, we do not wish to interfere with the impugned orders passed. We may, however, reiterate the settled position of law on the interference of the High Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India in commercial matters, where an effective and efficacious alternative forum has been constituted through a statute. We are also constrained to take judicial notice of the fact that certain High Courts continue to interfere in such matters, leading to a regular supply of cases before this Court. One such High Court is that of Punjab & Haryana.

14. A writ of certiorari is to be issued over a decision when the Court finds that the process does not conform to the law or statute. In other words, courts are not expected to substitute themselves with the decision- making authority while finding fault with the process along with the reasons assigned. Such a writ is not expected to be issued to remedy all violations. When a Tribunal is constituted, it is expected to go into the issues of fact and law, including a statutory violation. A question as to whether such a violation would be over a a mandatory prescription as against discretionary one is primarily within the domain of the Tribunal. So also, the issue governing waiver, acquiescence, and estoppel. We wish to place reliance on the decision of this Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1955) 1 SCR 1104, Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2024 dt.07-10-2024 “Then the question is whether there are proper grounds for the issue of certiorari in the present case. There was considerable argument before us as to the character and scope of the writ of certiorari and the conditions under which it could be issued. The question has been considered by this Court in Parry & Co. v. Commercial Employees’ Association, Madras [(1952) SCR 519], Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd. & Others [(1952) SCR 583], Ibrahim Aboobaker v. Custodian General [(1952) SCR 696] and quite recently in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa [(1955) SCR 250]. We wish to quote with profit a recent decision of this Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P., (2021) 6 SCC 771, ““25. In this background, it becomes necessary for this Court, to dwell on the “rule of alternate remedy” and its judicial exposition. In Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1, a two-Judge Bench of this Court after reviewing the case law on this point, noted: (SCC pp. 9-10, paras 14-15) “14.The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for “any other purpose.

15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has Patna High Court CWJC No.546 of 2024 dt.07-10-2024 been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field”.