TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 710
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ls which is used in the manufacture of the above products. 3. It is stated that the petitioner, during the course of their business, came in contact with the officers working with the 1st respondent, M/s.Electronics Finance Limited, who offered to sell them an imported machinery viz. "DMG Mori HSC-55 Linear"-made in Germany. The petitioner states that this machinery was originally imported by one M/s.Petmoulds (P) Ltd., SP 150, Sector I, 4th Lane,First Main Road, Ambattur, Chennai, 3rd respondent herein through the seaport of Customs, Chennai, by availing customs duty exemption against Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) License issued by the DGFT authorities by executing a bond or undertaking for the grant of EPCG license within a specified period as per the conditions of the said license. 4. The petitioner states that the above import was financed by respondent No.1. The 3rd respondent had not executed any export under the license granted to them and also committed default in the repayment of the loan obtained by them from the 1st respondent. The petitioner states that the 1st respondent took possession of the machineries. 5. The petitioner states that since they are m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was no loan agreement for purchase of these machines. The petitioner would therefore contend that in the absence of any debt proceedings under SARFAESI Act, the action of the 1st respondent would be squarely without jurisdiction. 10. It is the contention of the petitioner that the 1st respondent does not come with the secured creditors under Section 2(zd), there is no security agreement under Section 2(zb), there is no secured debt under Section 2(ze) and there is no security interest under Section 2(zf) and therefore, the proceedings under SARFAESI Act could not be initiated at all and hence, the petitioner filed the instant Writ Petition. 11. The typed set of papers shows that the term loan-cumhypothecation agreement had been entered into between the petitioner and the 1st respondent on 16.06.2016, wherein, the petitioner has been described as borrower. The recital clearly states that the borrower had requested the 1st respondent for sanction of term loan for the purpose of purchasing the said asset and for the purpose of discharging payment of liabilities towards their asset. 12. A look at the agreement would show that the loan agreement had been entered into between ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mitment. Therefore, the action taken by the appellant for recovery of its dues by issuing notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) and by filing an application under Section 14 cannot be faulted on any legally permissible ground and, in our view, the Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error by entertaining the writ petition of respondent No. 1. 17. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If respondent No. 1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1). The expression 'any person' used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective. Unfor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... projects of public importance and disables them from discharging their constitutional and legal obligations towards the citizens. In cases relating to recovery of the dues of banks, financial institutions and secured creditors, stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of such bodies/institutions, which ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation. Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters. Of course, if the petitioner is able to show that its case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad AIR 1969 SC 556, Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1=1999-2-L.W.200 and Harbanslal Sahnia and another v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others (2003) 2 SCC 107 and some other judgments, then the High Court may, after considering all the relevant parameters and public interest, pass appropriate interim order. 27. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the avail....