TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 253
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e account as Non Performing vide letter dated 17.04.2015. (ii) To restrain permanently the respondent Bank on the strength of such issuance of the notices under SARFAESI Act to take possession of the premises of the petitioners and withdraw the notices. 2. Petitioner No.1 is a registered company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is the case of the petitioners that they applied to the respondentState Bank of India for restructuring of the term loan by letter dated 01.01.2014. It was stated that because of various factors like delayed commission of the project, nonavailability of power supply etc., a request had to be made to convert the cash credit limit of Rs. 8 crores of petitioner No.1 into working capital term loan fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bank had restructured the said account on 26.03.2015. By filing further affidavit, the petitioners complained that the respondent Bank highhandedly transferred the account of petitioner No.1 from Surat Branch to Ahmedabad Recovery Branch. He submitted that after the account of the petitioners was restructured, the petitioners have not committed default, therefore resort to the provisions of SARFAESI Act by the Bank was not justified in law. 4.1 The case and the prayers of the petitioners was contested by the respondent Bank by filing affidavit contending mainly as under, (a) Petitioner No.1 Company on 24.03.2014 was conveyed about renewalcumrestructuring of their accounts. As per the said restructuring new FITL of Rs. 2.30 crore was also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o.2 was allotted another plot in lieu of this to petitioner No.2 which he had not advised to the bank. The same was considered as breach of trust. (e) Despite frequent requests by the answering respondent to infuse fund in the business, the petitioner company remained dependent solely on the respondent Bank for further finance. Under the circumstances, the Bank was not in a position to accept addition exposure in the company. The company's working was not good even before the fire took place. Additional funds as per the conditions laid down in the sanction was not brought in by the petitioners. 4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Nagesh Sood submitted that the petitioner suffered from vice of suppressio falsi and suggestio veri. He further submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Act, 2016. 5.3 In Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev vs. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 2 SCC 782], the Supreme Court has stated that the measures under Section 14 constitutes the action taken after the stage of Section 13(4) and a remedy of appeal under Section 17 would be available. In that case, refusal by the High Court to entertain the writ petition was held to be fully justified. 5.4 In Union Bank of India Vs Satyawati Tondon [(2010) 8 SCC 110] the Apex Court observed thus, "the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... K. Venkatesh and ors. vs. Indian Overseas Bank, Hyderabad and ors. delivered on 30.07.2015 by the Andhra Pradesh High Court (ii) Issan Overseas Limited vs. Union of India [2012(0) GLHELHC 228186] and (iii) Bharatbhai Ramniklal Sata vs. Collector and District Magistrate and anr. [AIR 2010 Gujarat 72]. The Division Bench of this Court also reiterated the same principles in Sonali Sunil Bhanushali vs. Authorized Officer HDFC Bank being Letters Patent Appeal No. 395 of 2016 decided on 06.05.2016. 6. It is trite that in all the area of matters involving commercial disputes, the rule of alternative remedy has to be adhered to steadfast, instead of allowing the petitioners to straightway approach the High Court in a writ jurisdiction. In this v....