KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED versus NARENDRA JAYANTILAL TRIVEDI & ANR.

Citation: [2022] 19 S.C.R. 360 · Decided: 13-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED
v.
NARENDRA JAYANTILAL TRIVEDI & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 4026-4027 of 2022)
MAY 13, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Administration of Justice – Abuse of Process of Law – Debts
Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 – Securitisation
and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security
Interest Act, 2002 – Held: One after another, a number of
proceedings were initiated by respondent No.1 by which he has
delayed the proceedings initiated by the bank under the SARFAESI
Act to recover the amount due and payable since 1986 and has
stalled the recovery proceedings – In spite of the strong observations
made by the adjudicating authority in the earlier order re-produced
by the Single Judge in his judgment and the strong observations
made by the Single Judge, the Division Bench was not justified in
initially granting an ex-parte ad-interim relief and thereafter, to
continue the same on withdrawal of the Letters Patent Appeal –
Once the Division Bench did not interfere with the order passed by
the Single Judge on merits, thereafter, it was not open for the Division
Bench to pass an order permitting the Respondent No. 1 to withdraw
the Letters Patent Appeal and also make observations that any of
the observations made by the DRT as well as by Single Judge while
dismissing the writ petition shall be ignored and/or shall not be
taken into consideration – Allowing such a practice would
tantamount to not only taking a chance before the court but would
be indeed speculative and an abuse of the process of the court –
Proceedings before the Court are not for taking the chance by the
litigants – Impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court, in so far as in terms of paragraphs 3(ii), 3(iii) and 4, is
set aside – Further, the ex-parte interim order granted in the Letters
Patent Appeal also stands vacated – Costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be
deposited by respondent No.1.
[2022] 19 S.C.R. 360
360
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
361
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4026
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.01.2022 of the High Court
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal No. 75 of 2022.
With
Civil Appeal No. 4027 of 2022.
Amar Dave, Himanshu Bhushan, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms. Sonam Anand, Santosh Krishnan, Malak Manish Bhatt, Advs.
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
M. R. SHAH, J.
Leave granted.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with impugned order dated
25.01.2022 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat
at Ahmedabad and subsequent order dated 04.03.2022, in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 75/2022, the original respondent – Bank has preferred the
present appeals.
2. The facts leading to the present appeals are as under: -
2.1 A loan facility of Rs. 29,50,000/- was earlier extended by State
Bank of India and later assigned to the appellant – Bank to a proprietorship
firm of respondent No. 1 herein i.e., M/s Aromatics Intermediates and
Chemicals. As a security for the said loan facility, property belonging to
respondent No. 1 was mortgaged in favour of State Bank of India. In
view of default by respondent No. 1 in making payments of the outstanding
amounts, the bank filed a civil suit in the year 1986 for recovery of its
dues and enforcement of securities. Upon enactment of the Recovery
of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act, 1993), the suit was transferred to the Debts
Recovery Tribunal (DRT), which was numbered as Transfer Application
No. 95/1995. The DRT vide order dated 03.03.2000 decreed the said
application and directed respondent No. 1 and the guarantors to pay
jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 44,01,159.47/- with cost.
2.2 Thereafter, the debts under the credit facility were assigned in
favour of the appellant – bank. Pursuant to the assignment of dues, bank
KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED v. NARENDRA
JAYANTILAL TRIVEDI & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 19 S.C.R.
issued a demand notice upon the judgment debtor – respondent No. 1
and others under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction
of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002
(SARFAESI Act) for a sum of Rs. 27,35,85,200.62/- as on 20.06.2011,
together with further interest and expenses and costs. Before any further
measures under section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act could be taken 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.