Mr. Vikas Goyal & Ors. vs. Hdfc Bank Limited, & Anr.

Facts

The petitioners, Mr. Vikas Goyal & Ors., filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking several reliefs. These included directions to the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II for expeditious adjudication of a Securitisation Application, a direction to HDFC Bank to release ₹20 lakhs from a sanctioned loan, and a direction to de-seal and restore possession of the petitioners' factory premises. Additionally, the petitioners sought directions to the GST Department to reconsider a penalty and interest imposed via an order dated 29.04.2024, considering their submissions regarding the unavailability of requisite documents. The respondent No. 2 (GST Department) argued that the prayer concerning the GST Department was baseless. The petitioners then sought leave to withdraw the petition to initiate proceedings before the appropriate forum.

Held

The Court granted the petitioners' request to withdraw the writ petition. The primary reason for this decision was the petitioners' explicit prayer to withdraw the matter with liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. The Court did not delve into the merits of the claims against the Debt Recovery Tribunal, HDFC Bank, or the GST Department. The respondent No. 2, while asserting that the prayer concerning the GST Department was baseless, did not object to the withdrawal. Therefore, the Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, granting the petitioners the liberty to pursue their remedies elsewhere. No specific findings were made on the substantive issues raised, as the petition was disposed of on the procedural ground of withdrawal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, New Delhi, should be directed to expedite the adjudication of Securitisation Application (SA No. 274 of 2023) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, considering the petitioners' financial distress and urgency? 2. Whether HDFC Bank Limited should be directed to release the withheld amount of ₹20 lakhs from the sanctioned loan as per the loan agreement? 3. Whether the petitioners' factory premises should be de-sealed and possession restored, given the allegation of illegal seizure without a hearing? 4. Whether the GST Department should be directed to reconsider the penalty and interest imposed on 29.04.2024, in light of the petitioners' submissions regarding document unavailability? Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioners sought various directions as outlined in the reliefs, emphasizing financial distress, urgency, and alleged violations of natural justice. They specifically requested reconsideration of GST penalty and interest due to unavailability of documents. Respondent's Contentions (GST Department): Respondent No. 2 argued that the prayer for directions to the GST Department was baseless and lacked grounds, constituting a gross misuse of the process of law. However, they did not object to the withdrawal of the petition.