Writ not maintainable when there is a question of fact involved & alternative remedy available : JK HC

J&K Integrated Textile Park Limited Vs Union of India And Ors. (Jammu & Kashmir High Court)

Conclusion: J&K HC while dismissing the writ petition observed that there was an alternative remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and the issue raised by the petitioner is a disputed question of fact that cannot adjudicated upon in the writ petition.

Facts: In the present case, the writ petition was filed for seeking quashment of the e-auction Notice dated 13.02.2021 and 06^th March, pertaining to the factories and buildings owned by the petitioner and restraining the respondent No. 3-Bank from proceeding further with the impugned e-auction notices.

That petitioner is a Company and the main object of the petitioner-company is to act as a Special Purpose Vehicle for implementing different schemes of the Central/State Governments. The petitioner pursuant to the Scheme for Integrated Textile Park (SITP) floated by the respondent No. 1, made a proposal for establishment of Textile Park Project and that was approved by the respondent No. 1. As per Clause 2.4 of the Scheme, the total project cost for the purpose of the scheme includes cost on account of ITP components as listed under Groups B, C & D provided the ownership of the factory and buildings vests with the Special Purpose Vehicle. The land, that formed component A of Scheme, was not included in the total project cost. The petitioner was allotted 200 kanals of land at Industrial Estate Govindsar, Kathua. The lease deed dated 22.03.2012 came to be executed between the respondent No. 2 and the petitioner for a period of 90 years. Thereafter, Memorandum of Agreement dated 29^th May, 2013 also came to be executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 1.

The petitioner in turn claims to have executed Lease Agreement with the nine units holders. The petitioner has placed on record Lease Agreement dated 28^th December, 2013 executed between the petitioner and respondent No. 8. It needs to be noted that the lease agreements executed with other unit holders have not been placed on record. As per the lease agreement dated 28^th December 2013, the lessee units cannot claim any ownership on the demised premises and the ownership of the demised premises shall always vest with the petitioner SPV.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.