IMPORTANT POINT
High Court will not be justified in exercising jurisdiction in writ petition when petitioner concededly has alternative statutory remedies.

Devan Ramachandran, J.—The petitioner is stated to be the applicant in a Securitisation Application, numbered as S.A.No.197 of 2016, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal - 2, Kerala (‘DRT’ for short) and he impugns Ext.P4 order of the said Tribunal, closing the afore mentioned Securitisation Application as having become infructuous. The petitioner says that the DRT was in error in so closing the Securitisation Application, since the matter had not become infrutuous, contrary to what is recorded in Ext.P4.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner explains that the aforementioned Securitisation Application was filed by his client impugning a possession notice, dated 01.02.2011, issued by the respondent Bank under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act (‘the SARFAESI Act’ for brevity), and that pending this Application, the Bank filed Ext.P2 memo before the DRT withdrawing the said notice and seeking permission to initiate fresh action under Section OP (DRT).No. 34 of 2019 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The learned counsel says that the DRT, solely based on this memo, dismissed the Securitisation Application under the misconception that nothing survives therein. According to the learned counsel, several reliefs had been sought for in the Securitisation Application and therefore, that merely because the Bank had withdrawn the impugned possession notice, the said Application could not have been disposed of in the manner, as has been done in Ext.P4. He therefore, prays that Ext.P4 be set aside and that the DRT be directed to take up the Securitisation Application and dispose it of in terms of law.

3. Sri. R. Rema, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent - Bank, submits that, as is clear from Ext.P2, her client had withdrawn the possession notice dated 01.02.2011, produced as Annexure - F in the Securitisation Application, since they were unable to produce proof of service of the said notice on the borrower; and therefore, they had sought permission to withdraw their contentions with liberty to initiate fresh proceedings. She OP (DRT).No. 34 of 2019 says that Ext.P4 order was thereupon issued by the DRT correctly, imposing a cost of Rs.20,000/- against the Bank, which costs were accepted by the petitioner, endorsing its receipt in the proceeding sheet of the Tribunal. She therefore, says that the petitioner cannot be now allowed to challenge Ext.P4, particularly when he had indubitably accepted the same, evidenced by him receiving the costs ordered in it.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in response to the submissions of Smt.Rema, says that his client had accepted the costs being under a wrong impression and that he was forced to do so under coercion and duress by the Tribunal. He says that merely because his client had accepted the costs, it would be no reason for this Court to deny jurisdiction.

5. Even when I hear the learned counsel for the parties as afore, I have serious doubts as to whether this Court can exercise any jurisdiction in this matter on account of the fact that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious OP (DRT).No. 34 of 2019 statutory remedy by filing an appeal against Ext.P4 order before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. Further, going by the binding precedent of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon ((2010) 8 SCC 110) and followed recently in Authorised Officer, SBT v. Mathew (ILR 2018 (1) Ker. 479), I will not be justified in exercising jurisdiction in this writ petition, when the petitioner concededly has alternative statutory remedies.

6. Apart from this, the question as to whether the petitioner had accepted the costs, awarded in Ext.P4, under duress or under a misdirection are not matters that can engage the attention of this Court affirmatively and therefore, if the petitioner so desires, his remedy will be file to an appropriate application for re