The Supreme Court recently set aside a high court order that had granted an interim order in writ petitions filed in SARFAESI matters.
The bench comprising Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Justice Navin Sinha said: “Despite several judgments of this Court, including a judgment by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha, as recently as on 30.01.2018, in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and Anr. vs. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85, the High Courts continue to entertain matters which arise under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI), and keep granting interim orders in favour of persons who are Non-Performing Assets (NPAs).”
Allowing the appeal by the ICICI Bank, it said: “The writ petition, in this case, being not maintainable, obviously, all orders passed must perish, including the impugned order, which is set aside.”
The same bench, in January this year, had delivered a judgment disapproving such approach of the Kerala High Court. In the said case, the single bench had admitted a writ petition filed by KC Mathew and passed an interim order of stay. The apex court bench had vacated the said order. The bench had quoted a judgment of the year 2010 in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others.
In Satyawati Tandon, it was observed: “It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.”