SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Gau) 1261

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
R.M. CHHAYA, SOUMITRA SAIKIA, JJ.
Sarabjeet Singh S/o Late Harbans Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Indian Bank and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 7589 of 2022
Decided On : 25-11-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: S. Mitra.
For the Respondent: S. Chakraborty.

Exhaustion of statutory remedy of appeal before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

SARFAESI Act - Extraordinary Jurisdiction - Section 13(3A), Section 14, Section 13(4), Section 17, Section 18 - The court dismissed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as the petitioners had an efficacious remedy available before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The court referred to the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Varimadugu Obi Reddy vs. B. Sreenivasulu and Others, emphasizing the need to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution without avoiding the condition of pre-deposit contemplated under the SARFAESI Act 2002.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside and quash the Sale Notices issued by the respondent No. 4. The petitioners had not filed any representation as provided under Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act, and had an efficacious remedy of filing an appeal before the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the petition as the petitioners had an efficacious remedy available before the DRT and emphasized the need to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issues: Admissibility of petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, availability of efficacious remedy before the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners should exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, as emphasized in the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. S. Mitra, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:

    “It is therefore, prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this Application, issue Rule and call for Records, directing the Respondents to Show Cause as to why an appropriate Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ should not be issued thereby setting aside and quash the Sale Notices dated 27.10.2022 (ANNEXURE-R) issued by the respondent No. 4 and/or also pass such other order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

AND

Pending disposal of the Rule your Lordship would be pleased to keep in abeyance the Sale Notices dated 27.10.2022 (ANNEXURE-R) and also keep in abeyance any coercive action against the Petitioners and/or also pass such other order or orders as to Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. It is an admitted position that the petitioners have not filed any representation as provided under Section 13(3A) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002. They have also not produced on record any order passed by the DRT under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and even the notice under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act.

4. As the petitioners have an efficacious remedy of filing an appeal as provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT, we do not find it appropriate to exercise our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. We are fortified in our view by the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Varimadugu Obi Reddy vs. B. Sreenivasulu and Others in Civil Appeal No. 8470 of 2022 decided on 16.11.2022 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as thus:

    “32. The order of the Tribunal dated 1st August, 2019 was an appealable order under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and in the ordinary course of business, the borrowers/person aggrieved was supposed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal which the law provides under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in the absence of efficacious alternative remedy being availed, there was no reasonable justification tendered by the respondent borrowers in approaching the High Court and filing writ application assailing order of the Tribunal dated 1st August, 2019 under its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the statutory right of appeal available at its command.

33. This Court in the judgment in United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 110, was concerned with the argument of alternative remedy provided under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and dealing with the argument of alternative remedy, this Court had observed that where an effective remedy is available to an aggrieved person, the High Court ordinarily must insist that before availing the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, the alternative remedy available under the relevant statute must be exhausted. Paras 43, 44 and 45 of the said judgment are relevant for the purpose and are extracted below:

“43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top