Back
2022 Supreme(Raj) 3027
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Mahendar Kumar Goyal, J.
Priya Baheti – Appellant
Versus
IIFL, Home Finance Ltd & Ors. – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4259/2020
Decided On : 08-09-2022
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Remedies and Appeals
Act Referred
Headnote
Alternative Remedy - Writ Petition - The court dismissed the writ petition as the petitioner had an alternative remedy of statutory appeal under Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition against the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) declining the prayer for interim relief in a pending securitization application. The respondent argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had a remedy of statutory appeal under Section 18 of the Act of 2002.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an alternative remedy of statutory appeal under Section 18 of the Act of 2002. The court dismissed the writ petition and disposed of the pending application accordingly.
Issues: The main issue was whether the writ petition was maintainable when the petitioner had an alternative remedy of statutory appeal under Section 18 of the Act of 2002.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had a remedy of statutory appeal under Section 18 of the Act of 2002 against the order impugned, and the writ petition was bereft of any averment as to why the writ jurisdiction of the court had been invoked without exhausting the alternative remedy of statutory appeal.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and disposed of the pending application due to the availability of the alternative remedy of statutory appeal to the petitioner.
None Present, for the Appellant; Mr. Akshat Kulshrestha, for the Respondent
ORDER
1. None present for the petitioner even in the second round.
2. None was present for the petitioner on last date i.e. on 02.09.2022 whereupon, the matter was posted for today granting him one more opportunity to present his case.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the instant writ petition is not maintainable as it is directed against the order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur (for brevity, ’DRT’) whereby, the prayer for interim relief in pending securitization application, has been declined.
4. He submits that this Court has, vide its order dated 01.09.2022 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4568/2020; Surbhi Mehta Vs. IIFL Home Finance Ltd. & Ors. and other connected matters involving identical controversy, dismissed the writ petitions preferred against order of the learned DRT in view of availability of the remedy of statutory appeal under section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for the brevity, ’the Act of 2002’). He also relied upon the order dated 30.06.2020 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4831/2020; Shri Anant Agarwal Vs. IIFL Home Finance Ltd. & Ors., in this regard.
5. Heard learned counsel and perused the record.
6. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 27.12.2019 passed by the learned DRT in a securitization application. The petitioner has a remedy of statutory appeal under Section 18 of the Act of 2002 against the order impugned and the writ petition is bereft of any averment as to why the writ jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked without exhausting the alternative remedy of statutory appeal.
6. In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition which is dismissed for availability of alternative remedy of statutory appeal to the petitioner.
7. The pending application also stands disposed of accordingly.
