ESS MULTIFOODS PVT. LTD. Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction for assailing the Possession Notice dtd. 5/2/2022 issued by respondent No.1 under Sec. 13(4) of the Securitisation And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002, a copy whereof is at Annexure- G. They have also made a prayer for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to the respondent-Bank to consider their representation dtd. 11/2/2022 (Annexure-H) for the restructuring of loans in terms of extant RBI Guidelines, inter alia contending that they are a 'MSME' which enjoys some special treatment under the provisions of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 [whilst issuing notice].

(2.) This court whilst issuing notice had granted reprieve by interim order dtd. 25/3/2022 subject to making some payment. Learned counsel for the petitioners in all fairness points out that although the entire amount as directed is paid in terms of the interim order, there is a short delay brooked in making payment of a small portion thereof and that said delay be condoned. This argument impresses the court inasmuch as there is substantial compliance of the interim order and thus, bona fide has been shown; added, delay is not long.

(3.) Learned panel counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank vehemently contends that all the contentions which the petitioners have taken up before this Court can be the subject matter of consideration at the hands of the Debt Recovery Tribunal and therefore, petitioners be relegated to the same keeping open all such contentions. This prima facie appears to be true in view of a catena of decision of the Apex Court. When the alternate & equally efficacious statutory remedy avails, Writ Courts ordinarily keep away from adjudging disputes of the kind, exceptional circumstances not being demonstrated.