D.N. Patel, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner whose writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4809 of 2014 has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 4.12.2014.

2. Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the action initiated by the respondents-Bank under the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (For the sake of brevity here-in-after referred to as the Act, 2002).

3. Notice has been given by the respondents-Bank under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002 for the non-payment of the loan amount taken by this appellant under the cash credit facility.

4. It further appears from the facts of the case that this appellant is ready and willing to make the payment of Rs.4,86,342/-. Certificate case was also filed by the respondents-Bank in which order has been passed in favour of the Bank for Rs.4,86,342/- approximately. Be as it may, the facts remain that the respondents-Bank has also initiated action under Section 13(2) of the Act, 2002. The remedy is available with this appellant under the Act, 2002. Moreover, those who are defaulters are rushing to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in High Court they are making offer for payment of the amount. We are not accepting such type of offer at much belated stage. It is for the Bank to consider and it is a matter of contract between this appellant and the respondents-Bank. It is the fact that sizeable amount was given by the Bank which was not returned by this appellant under the Act, 2002. If the action is initiated by this appellant under Section 13(2), the remedy is available under the Act, 2002. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. We see no reason to take any other view than what has been taken by the learned Single Judge.

5. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 11, in paragraph nos. 43 & 55, which read as under :

"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 themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage, constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.

55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the ORT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction, under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection."

(Emphasis supplied)

6. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 782, in paragraph nos. 22, 23, 24 & 25, which read as under :

"