The SARFAESI Act provides a complete code for recovery of dues by secured creditors, empowering them to enforce security interest without court intervention. Section 17(1) allows any person aggrieved by measures under section 13(4) to appeal to the DRT, aligning with the Act's objective of speedy recovery.

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. The present appeal is filed seeking to impugn the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1.9.2015 by which the Writ Petition was dismissed holding that the appellant has an alternate efficacious remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 17(1) of The Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “SARFAESI Act”).

2. The brief relevant facts as stated which led to filing of the Writ Petition are that the borrower M/s.India Iron and Steel Corporation Limited had its factory on plot of land measuring Khasra No.116, 117, 119 and 153, village Noorpur Khirki and Khasra No.40, 41 min.42 village Faridnagar, Tehsil Dhampur, District Bijnor, Uttar Pradesh and the plant and machinery therein at the premise. The said property was mortgaged by the borrower with the respondent bank for obtaining financial facilities. On account of defaults committed by the borrower the respondent bank initiated appropriate proceedings under the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002. A sale notice was issued on 17.5.2014 about sale/auction of the property and the Plant and Machinery on 17.6.2014. The reserve sale price of the mortgaged immoveable property was fixed at Rs.4.15 crores and the reserve sale price of hypothecated goods was fixed at 12.06 crores. The total price was Rs.16.26 crores. The appellant participated in the auction. Before participation it deposited Rs.1.62 crores towards 10% of the minimum reserve price. The appellant was declared as the single highest bidder as no other bids were received by the bank. Pursuant to letter of acceptance, the appellant paid the balance of 15% being Rs.2,44,50,000/-. The appellant entered into an MOU on 18.6.2014 with respondent bank by which 75% of the balance sale price being Rs.12,19,50,000/-was payable by the appellant to the respondent bank within 120 days i.e. by 15.10.2014. The appellant is stated to have given 4 post dated cheques each of Rs.3,04,87,500/-to be encashed on 17.7.2014, 16.8.2014, 15.9.2014 and lastly on 15.10.2014. Certain steps were taken by the appellant pursuant to the MOU i.e. dismantling of the plant and machinery for the purpose of selling of scrap after depositing equivalent amount.

3. In the meantime, the borrower commenced legal proceedings before Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow. These were dismissed by DRT Lucknow on 26.9.2014, It appears that the borrower thereafter also filed proceedings before DRAT, Allahabad and the Allahabad High Court. The full details of the proceedings are not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the issue raised in the present appeal. It appears that certain disputes arose between the appellant and the respondent bank on account of which on 26.6.2015 and 7.7.2015 the respondent bank issued a letter intimating the appellant that the auction confirmed in his favour stood cancelled in view of non-payment of the balance 75% consideration amount. The appellant has raised various pleas stating that the respondent bank acted in breach of the agreed terms, failed to issue sale certificate in respect of 975 MT of scrap material etc. It is also the grievance of the appellant that despite the auction sale being cancelled by the respondent bank, the respondent bank has not refunded the admitted amount of Rs.1.62 crores lying with the respondent bank. Hence, the present Writ Petition was filed seeking directions to the respondent to refund the said money.

4. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 110, held that the appellant is covered by the expression “any person” used in Section 17 of SARFAESI Act and has an alternative and efficacious remedy of approaching the DRT and initiating appropriate proceedings against the respondent seeking the same relief. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed.

5. We have he