M/S GABHARU ENTERPRISE AND 3 ORS v. M/S S.M. ASSOCIATES

HALESWAR GOROIMARI P.O. HALESWAR P.S. TEZPUR DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM PIN-784104 PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP. BY ITS PARTNERS SRI SIMANTA SAIKIA AND SMT. MEENA SAIKIA. 3: SIMANTA SAIKIA S/O. SRI KESHAB SAIKIA R/O. HALESWAR GOROIMARI P.O. HALESWAR PIN-784104 DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM. 4: SMT. MEENA SAIKIA W/O. SRI SIMANTA SAIKIA R/O. HALESWAR GOROIMARI P.O. HALESWAR PIN-784104 DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM Page No.# 2/6 VERSUS THE BANK OF BARODA AND 5 ORS HAVING ITS H.O. AT BARODA BHAVAN, RC DUTT ROAD, ALKAPURI, BARODA-390007, GUJARAT, REP. BY CHAIRMAN. 2:THE AUTHORISED OFFICER BANK OF BARODA TEZPUR BRANCH M.D. ROAD NEAR IDD GAAH FIELD TEZPUR-784001 DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM. 3:THE BRANCH MANAGER BANK OF BARODA TEZPUR BRANCH M.D. ROAD NEAR ODD GAAH FIELD TEZPUR-784001 DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM. 4:THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SONITPUR DISTRICT TEZPUR-784001. 5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER CUM EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE TEZPUR REVENUE CIRCLE TEZPUR-784001 DIST. SONITPUR. 6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER CUM EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE THELAMARA REVENUE CIRCLE THELAMARA DIST. SONITPUR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B D GOSWAMI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM Page No.# 3/6 -B E F O R E- HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.M. CHHAYA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA

20.07.2022 (R.M. Chhaya, CJ) Heard Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to the action taken against the petitioners by the respondent Bank under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘the SARFAESI Act’). The petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and, therefore, no interference is called for in this petition. We are fortified in our view by the binding decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore & Anr. –vs- Mathew K.C., reported in AIR 2018 SC 676, wherein it was observed as under: “9. The statement of objects and reasons of the SARFAESI Act states that the banking and financial sector in the country was felt not to have a level playing field in comparison to other participants in the financial markets in the world. The financial institutions in India did not have the power to take possession of securities and sell them. The existing legal framework relating to commercial transactions had not kept pace with changing commercial practices and financial sector reforms resulting in tardy recovery of defaulting loans and mounting non-performing assets of banks and financial institutions. The Narasimhan Committee I and II as also the Andhyarujina Committee constituted by the Central Government Act had suggested enactment of new legislation for securitisation and empowering banks and financial institutions to take possession of securities and sell them without court intervention which would enable them to realise long-term assets, manage problems of liquidity, asset liability mismatches and improve recovery. The proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT Act’) with passage of time, had become synonymous with those before regular courts affecting expeditious adjudication. All these aspects have not been kept in mind and considered before passing the impugned order.