The main legal point established in this judgment is that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters involving recovery of dues under the SARFAESI Act when an effective alternative remedy is available. The Court emphasized that the SARFAESI Act provides a comprehensive procedure for recovery of dues and envisages the constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of grievances.

JUDGMENT :

M.M. Sundresh, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Seeking enforcement of a unilateral offer concerning private financial transactions, while questioning the steps taken to recover the dues on the failure to comply with the one-time settlements, extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court was sought to be invoked. Acceding to the request made by duly interfering with the action taken by the Appellants, orders were passed, in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Court of Kerala, which are impugned in the present appeals.

3. Heard Mr. K.V. Vishwanathan, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents.

4. Two loans were obtained by the Respondents, being a housing / KCC overdraft loan and a business loan. The accounts of the Respondents were declared as non-performing assets (“NPA”) on 27.05.2021. Notices under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act”) were issued on 07.08.2021 and 12.08.2021, respectively, which were duly replied to by the Respondents on 28.10.2021, seeking twelve months’ time to repay the loan.

5. Strangely enough, within 3 days of the reply dated 28.10.2021, prior to the expiry of the statutory period prescribed, a challenge was laid to the demand notice issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, by filing Writ Petition No. 23940 of 2021. Entertaining the said lis, a direction was issued to the Appellants to consider the proposal placed. In due compliance of the aforesaid order, the Respondents were allowed to remit the dues accrued in five installments instead of twelve. The extended benefit conferred was not utilized by the Respondents, and therefore, a reminder was also sent. Receiving no response, two notices under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, were issued on 02.12.2021 and 20.12.2021.

6. Impugning the aforesaid notices, two writ petitions were filed by the Respondents, being Writ Petition No. 30238 of 2021 and 30450 of 2021 questioning the action taken, through a writ of certiorari while praying for a positive direction to accept the unilateral offers made. It is to be noted that the Debt Recovery Tribunal, though was not functional at the time of filing the aforesaid Writ Petitions, became so from the month of March, 2022.

7. Taking note of the then prevailing situation resulting in the post of Presiding Officer lying vacant for proper adjudication in various Tribunals, an order was passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition No. 10911 dated 16.12.2021,

“Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has brought to our notice the difficulty being faced by parties on account of non-appointment of members in DRTs and DRATs.

He requested that the matters before DRT and DRAT can be directed to be considered by other Tribunals like Central Administrative Tribunal, Armed Forces Tribunal and Industrial Tribunal within the State.

With a view to resolve the problem being faced by the parties, for the time being and purely as a stop-gap arrangement, we request the concerned High Court(s) to entertain the matters falling within the jurisdiction of DRTs and DRATs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, till further orders.

We make it clear that once the Tribunal(s) is/are constituted, the matters can be relegated to the Tribunals by the High Court(s).

List the matter on 21-1-2022.”

8. As could be seen, the order is self-explanatory, making it clear that it is only an interim arrangement, and therefore, the pending matters ought to be transferred to the concerned Tribunals when they start functioning with their respective Presiding Officers duly in-charge. The aforesaid matter was disposed of by the order dated 12.09.2022,

“1. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that since the post in the Debt Recovery Tribunal has been filled up, the cause does not survive