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
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:
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:
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
AI
Exhaustion of statutory remedy of appeal before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The importance of exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal available under the relevant statute before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Judicial intervention under Article 226 is inappropriate when alternative statutory remedies exist, especially under the SARFAESI Act for issues related to e-auction notices.
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 not entertainable against SARFAESI proceedings due to efficacious DRT remedy under Section 17.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of exhaustion of statutory remedies and the limited circumstances under which the High Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdict....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.