At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
By, THE HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJIB BANERJEE & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D. AUDIKESAVALU
For the Petitioner: G. Josephine Shree, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, R2 & R5, K.B. Arul, ACGSC, R6, V. Chandrasekaran, Advocates.
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents herein to consider my representation dated 07.05.2021 and take steps for restructuring of loans of the petitioner considering the company within the ambit of COVID 19 Regulatory Circulars issued by the RBI and grant such further or other orders as this Hon’ble Court.)
Sanjib Banerjee, CJ.
1. The petitioner claims to be a small enterprise within the meaning of the expression used in the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 and the prayer made in the writ petition is for the respondent secured creditor to consider the petitioner’s representation to restructure the loan in line with guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India pertaining to loans obtained by MSME Enterprises.
2. The respondent bank says that the petitioner’s account became NPA on December 31, 2019. Further, it is evident that the petitioner’s request for restructuring the loan or the group accounts was expressly declined by a letter dated June 01, 2021 issued by the secured creditor.
3. The secured creditor’s counter-affidavit indicates that measures under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 have been adopted and one of the properties furnished as security has already been sold. The affidavit further reveals that the writ petitioner has approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Coimbatore under Section 17 of the Act and, by an order dated August 11, 2021, the Debts Recovery Tribunal granted a conditional interim order by directing the petitioner to deposit Rs.1.50 crore in two instalments by October 06, 2021. In the meantime, a property at Udumalpet Taluk in Tiruppur District has been sold by way of auction.
4. Ordinarily, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not entertained when there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner. In this case, it is evident that the petitioner has already invoked the jurisdiction of the appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal. As a consequence, the merits of the matter cannot be gone into and the petitioner is left free to work out its remedies in the proceedings pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
5. In any event, the petit
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ioner’s representation for restructuring the loan has been considered by the secured creditor and rejected by letter dated June 01, 2021, as aforesaid. W.P.No.14092 of 2021 is dismissed. W.M.P.No.14971 of 2021 is closed. There will be no order as to costs.