Back
RAVI NATH TILHARI, V. SRINIVAS
Ome Sri Rama Modern Raw And Boiled Rice Mill – Appellant
Versus
Indian Overseas Bank – Respondent
JUDGMENT
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J. Heard Sri K. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Hanumantha Rao Bachina, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri Ancha Pandu Ranga Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
2. The petitioner is challenging the order dtd. 21/10/2023 passed in S.A.No.367 of 2023 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (in short, DRT), Visakhapatnam.
3. The S.A.No.367 of 2023 was filed by the petitioner against the measure taken under Sec. 13 (4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, the Act 2002).
4. The said S.A has been dismissed by DRT after contest.
5. An objection has been raised by the learned counsels for the respondents that the petitioner has got equally efficacious statutory alternative remedy of appeal under Sec. 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the statutory remedy is available to the petitioner, but still the writ petition can be maintained against the order of the DRT. He submits that the petitioner's specific plea taken before the DRT that the valuation of the property put to auction was not
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the discretion of the court in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the availability of statutory alternative ....
As a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and....
Powers of High Court under Article 226 cannot be invoked in matter of recovery of dues under Act, unless there is any statutory violation resulting in prejudice to party or where such proceedings or ....
The High Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 if an effective remedy exists under the SARFAESI Act, emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory remedies.
The court established that compliance with statutory provisions is essential in possession proceedings under the Securitisation Act, and alternative remedies must be exhausted before seeking judicial....
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised when an effective alternative remedy exists under statutory provisions, thereby emphasizing self-restraint by High Courts in recovery matte....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
