M/S SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & ORS. versus NAVEEN MATHEW PHILIP & ANR. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2023] 4 S.C.R. 18 · Decided: 17-04-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJIV KHANNA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
18
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
[2023] 4 S.C.R. 18
18
M/S SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & ORS.
v.
NAVEEN MATHEW PHILIP & ANR. ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2861-62 of 2023)
APRIL 17, 2023
[SANJIV KHANNA AND M. M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and
Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002:
Writ Jurisdiction of High Court under – Matter pertaining to
default in payment of outstanding dues by the borrowers – Issuance
of notices u/s. 13(4) – Writ petitions by the borrowers challenging
the notices before the High Court – Debt Recovery tribunal was not
functional at the time when said writ petitions were filed– However,
became so from the month of March 2022 – Meanwhile, in an SLP,
order passed by this Court to transfer the pending matters to the
concerned tribunals when they start functioning with their respective
Presiding Officers duly in-charge – Notwithstanding the said order,
the High Court took upon itself to decide the said petitions and
allowed the borrower to make deferred payment in 12 months –
Appeal before this Court – Appellant’s case that the relief granted
by the High Court may not be disturbed while pressing for reiteration
of law which might guide the High Court in not entertaining such
writ petitions in the future – Held: In view of the fair stand of the
appellant, the relief granted by the High Court not to be disturbed
– Powers conferred under Article 226 are rather wide but are
required to be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances – In
matters where the legislature has provided for a specific mechanism
for appropriate redressal, constitutional remedy not to be resorted
to – Constitution of India – Art. 226.
SARFAESI Act – Purpose and Object – Discussed.
Writ:
Writ of certiorari – Issuance of, when – Held: Is to be issued
over a decision when the Court finds that the process does not
conform to the law or statute – Writ is not to be issued to remedy all
violations – Writ court cannot substitute itself with the decision-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
19
making authority while finding fault with the process – When a
tribunal is constituted,it is expected to determine issues of fact and
law, including a statutory violation – Constitution of India – Art.
226.
Writ of mandamus – Issuance of – Writ petition before the
High Court in commercial matters against the private individual
seeking issuance of mandamus – Held: Writ of Mandamus is a
prerogative writ – In the absence of any legal right, the Court cannot
exercise the said power – More circumspection is required in a
financial transaction, particularly when one of the parties would
not come within the purview of Art. 12.
Judicial deprecation: Interference of the High Courts in
matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act – Held: Said practice is
deprecated – Request to the High Courts not to entertain such cases
– When a statute prescribes a particular mode, an attempt to
circumvent shall not be encouraged by a writ court – A litigant
cannot avoid the non-compliance of approaching the tribunal which
requires the prescription of fees and use the constitutional remedy
as an alternative – Constitution of India – Article 226.
Judicial notice: Commercial matters, where an effective and
efficacious alternative forum has been constituted through a statute
– Interference by certain High Court invoking Art. 226 in such
matters leading to a regular supply of cases before this Court –
Judicial notice taken by this Court.
Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque (1955) 1
SCR 1104; Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India,
(2004) 4 SCC 311 : [2004] 3 SCR 982– relied on.
Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. (2021) 6 SCC
771; Phoenix Arc Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati
Vidya Mandir & Ors. (2022) 5 SCC 345; Federal Bank
Ltd. vs. Sagar Thomas & Ors. (2003) 10 SCC 733 :
[2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 121; State Bank of India vs.
Arvindra Electronics (P) Ltd. 2022 SCC Online SC
1522; United Bank of India vs. Satywati Tondon &
Others (2010) 8 SCC 110 : [2010] 9 SCR 1; Authorized
Officer, State Bank of Travancore & Another vs.
M/S SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & ORS. v. NAVEEN
MATHEW PHILIP & ANR. ETC. ETC.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
20
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 4 S.C.R.
Mathew K.C. (2018) 3 SCC 85 : [2018] 1 SCR 233;
Varimadugu OBI Reddy vs. B. Sreenivasulu & Others
(2023) 2 SCC 168 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2022) 5 SCC 345
referred to
Para 11, 17
[2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 121
referred to
Para 11, 17
[2010] 9 SCR 1
referred to
Para 11, 17
[2018] 1

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