LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

the only question which remained to be considered was the competence of the Allahabad High Court to entertain a writ petition from an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi,


                                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                       CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).5696   OF 2012
[@Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)23150/2012
                                                 CC 12128/2012]



   M/S. OPTIEMUS INFRACOM LTD.                       Appellant(s)

                 VERSUS

   M/S. ISHAN SYSTEMS PVT.LTD. & ANR.                Respondent(s)


                                    WITH

                       CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).5697   OF 2012
[@Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)23161/2012
                                                   CC 12468/2012]


   M/S.PHOENIX ARC PVT. LTD.                       Appellant(s)


                                   VERSUS


   M/S. ISHAN SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.                 Respondent(s)


                                  O R D E R


   1.   Two Special Leave Petitions have been filed  against  the  judgment
   and order dated 14th February, 2012, passed by the Allahabad High Court,
   in  Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.8409/2012.
   2.   The first Special Leave Petition has been filed  by  M/S.  OPTIEMUS
   INFRACOM LTD., being SLP(C)......CC 12128/12.   the second Special Leave
   Petition  has  been  filed  by  M/S.   PHOENIX   ARC   PVT.LTD.,   being
   SLP(C)......CC 12468/12.
   3.   Delay condoned.
   4.   Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions.
   5.   Writ Petition No.8409 of 2012, was filed by  the  respondent,  M/S.
   ISHAN SYSTEMS PVT.LTD.& ANR., against the judgment and order dated  11th
   April, 2011, whereunder the property of  the  respondent/judgment-debtor
   Co. was  put  to  auction.    An  application  had  been  filed  by  the
   respondent-company before the Debts  Recovery  Tribunal  complaining  of
   violation of the statutory rules which regulate the auction of property.
     Other grounds were also taken, but the same were rejected by the  High
   Court.   In fact, the High Court, after examining  the  records  of  the
   writ petition, had found no good ground to interfere with the  order  of
   the Appellate Authority.   Instead of stopping  there,  the  High  Court
   went on further  to  give  various  directions  to  the  Debts  Recovery
   Tribunal, to proceed and decide the application, which had been filed by
   the respondent  No.1/petitioner,  being  S.A.No.714/2011.    By  another
   direction the auction purchaser was restrained from  making any  further
   transfer of the property in question and any construction  raised  would
   abide by the orders to be passed in the pending application  before  the
   Debts Recovery Tribunal.   With the aforesaid directions, the High Court
   disposed of the writ petition finally.
   6.   The said judgment and order of the High Court had  been  questioned
   on the ground that having found no ground to interfere with the order of
   the Appellate Authority, the learned Judge of the High Court should  not
   have  passed other orders, and, in particular, an order  of  injunction,
   which was to the prejudice of the appellant before us,  without  issuing
   notice or giving the appellant  an opportunity of hearing.
   7.   Since the  writ petition was disposed of on the very  first   date,
   without notice to the respondents, there was no occasion to consider the
   competence of the Allahabad High Court to entertain the  writ  petition.
    Subsequently, another  writ  petition  was  filed  by  the  respondents
   herein, being No.35215 of 2012, before the  Allahabad  High  Court,  for
   quashing the order dated 10th July, 2012, which had been passed  by  the
   D.R.T.-III, Delhi, by which the application  filed  by  the  respondents
   herein under Section 17(1) of the   Securitisation and Reconstruction of
   Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security  Interest  Act,  2002  (the
   SARFAESI Act), was rejected.    In the said petition,  the  question  of
   jurisdiction  was  raised  and  was  heard  and  decided  against    the
   respondents herein.   In  fact,  reference  was  made  in  the  judgment
   delivered on 30th July, 2012, to the earlier writ petition  and  it  had
   been  observed  that  although,  the  earlier  writ  petition  had  been
   entertained  by  the  Allahabad  High  Court,  the  issue  relating   to
   jurisdiction had not been gone into, since the writ  petition  had  been
   disposed of on the first date, without hearing the respondents.
   8.   Ultimately, the learned Judge accepted the  preliminary  objections
   raised on behalf of the appellants herein  and held that  the  Allahabad
   High Court had no  jurisdiction  to  entertain  the  writ  petition  and
   dismissed the same accordingly.
   9.   Both, S/Shri Venugopal and Ranjit Kumar, learned  senior  advocates
   appearing for the appellants  in  these  two  appeals,  submitted  that,
   although, the order of the High Court has to some extent been worked out
   and the sale which had  been  effected  has  been  confirmed,  the  only
   question which remained to be  considered  was  the  competence  of  the
   Allahabad High Court to entertain a writ petition from an order   passed
   by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Delhi, and the fact that  the  same  was
   disposed of on the very first day, without notice,  by   issuing  orders
   and directions which prejudiced  the appellants.
   10.  Mr. Chetan  Sharma,  learned  senior  advocate  appearing  for  the
   respondents, has tried to impress upon us that the order  of  injunction
   which was passed by the Allahabad High Court  was innocuous and that  it
   did not prejudice or adversely affect the  appellants  in  any  way  and
   since the sale has  been  confirmed,  nothing  further  remained  to  be
   decided, as far as the said question is concerned.
   11.  It is true that the impugned order has more or less  worked  itself
   out, but it needs to be indicated that the practice which was adopted by
   the Allahabad High Court, is not only arbitrary, but  also  contrary  to
   the concept of  the principles of  natural  justice.    Since  the  writ
   petition was to be dismissed without issuing notice, it should have been
   dismissed   without  giving  any  further  directions  in  the   matter.
   Instead, certain positive instructions were given to the respondents and
     one of the respondents was restrained from dealing with the  property,
   without any notice to him/them.   If there was any intention on the part
   of the learned Judge to protect the properties in  question  during  the
   pendency of the matter before the Debts Recovery  Tribunal,  the  proper
   course of action would have been to issue  notice,  and,  if  necessary,
   pass interim orders and, thereafter, after hearing the parties  to  pass
   final orders in the matter.
   12.  We hope that in future, this kind of order will be avoided  in  the
   interest of justice and also having regard to the principles of  natural
   justice.
   13.  The appeals are allowed.  The impugned judgment to the extent  that
   it restrains the appellants from alienating or encumbering the property,
   is hereby set aside.
   14.  The appeals are  disposed of, accordingly.

                                      ...................J.
                              (ALTAMAS KABIR)


                                                       ...................J.
                              (J.CHELAMESWAR)
    NEW DELHI;
    August 01, 2012.