Rajvinder Singh Bedi Vs Reserve Bank of India And Others (Panjab and Haryana high court)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed a petition seeking directions against ICICI Bank, a private entity, regarding the possession and auction of a mortgaged property. The court reiterated that private banks do not fall under the definition of ‘State’ as per Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and thus, are not amenable to writ jurisdiction for such matters.
The petitioner, identified as a borrower, had approached the High Court seeking an order for ICICI Bank to expedite the physical possession and subsequent auction of a mortgaged property. The petitioner contended that despite notices being issued under Sections 13(2) and 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act in 2019, the bank had failed to take concrete steps, leading to a continuous increase in outstanding dues.
Judicial Precedents Guide Court’s Decision
The High Court, after hearing the petitioner’s counsel, concluded that the requested direction could not be issued to ICICI Bank. The court’s decision was significantly influenced by established judicial precedents from the Supreme Court.
A key reference was made to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Phoenix ARC Private Limited vs. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir & Ors. (2022) 5 SCC 645. In this case, the Supreme Court explicitly held that a writ petition against a private financial institution, such as an Asset Reconstruction Company (ARC), for actions proposed under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, is generally not maintainable.
