Rameswaram Enterprises, Nayagarh & Ors. v. Branch Manager, I.D.B.I

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 19.09.2024

This matter taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode). Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with prayer to set aside the vacation notice dated 30.08.2024 issued by the Opp. Party-Bank wherein it is indicated that since the petitioners have not paid the amount, the Bank is constrained to take possession of their property under section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, “SARFAESI, Act, 2002”) and realise the same towards settlement of dues and therefore, they were instructed to vacate the premises and furnish the vacant and peaceful possession within seven days from the date of notice, failing which the Bank will be constrained to dispossess them with police protection. It appears from the averments taken in the writ petition that the petitioners have already approached the learned D.R.T., Cuttack challenging the action of the Bank in issuing the notice under section 13(2) read with section 13(4) of the SARFAESI, Act, 2002 on

02.02.2024 and the same has been numbered as Diary No.511 of 2024. It is further stated therein that the Bank has already entered appearance, but no objection has been filed by the Bank. In the case of Celir LLP -Vrs.- Bafna Motors (Mumbai) (P) Ltd. reported in (2024) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph-110 has held that the High Court was not justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly the borrowers had already availed alternative remedy available to them under section 17 of the SARFAESI, Act, 2002. In view of the such observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and since the petitioners have already availed the alternative remedy and the matter is subjudiced before the learned D.R.T., Cuttack, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned vacation notice dated 30.08.2024. However, the petitioners are at liberty to seek further relief before the learned D.R.T., Cuttack. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the case has been posted to 16.10.2024, the petitioners may be permitted to move an application for advancing the date to take up the matter particularly in view of the issuance of the vacation notice under Annexure-2. It is up to the petitioners to file such application before the learned D.R.T., Cuttack for advancing the date and in that event, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) M.K.Rout Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANOJ KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 20-Sep-2024 12:55:12