The main legal point established in the judgment is that actions under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 are amenable to challenge under Section 17, providing an alternative statutory remedy for aggrieved parties.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 12.06.2018 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) passed by the District Magistrate, Dhanbad in SARFAESI Case No. 16/2018 allowing the application filed by the respondent-Bank under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 2002’). Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondent No. 4 to consider the petitioner’s application/representation for regularization/settlement of its loan account bearing No. 36900600000480.

2. Mr. P.S.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank, raises preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition and submits that the petitioner has filed the same without availing alternative/statutory/ efficacious remedy of preferring an application under Section 17 of the Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi against the impugned order dated 12.06.2018.

3. Since learned counsel for the respondent-Bank has raised the issue of maintainability of the writ petition, it would be appropriate to refer the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the said aspect.

4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 110, has held as under:

“42. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If Respondent 1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1). The expression “any person” used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective.”

5. Further, in the case of Standard Chartered Bank vs. Noble Kumar and Others, (2013) 9 SCC 620, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

“27. The “appeal” under Section 17 is available to the borrower against any measure taken under Section 13(4). Taking possession of the secured asset is only one of the measures that can be taken by the secured creditor. Depending upon the nature of the secured asset and the terms and conditions of the security agreement, measures other than taking the possession of the secured asset are possible under Section 13(4). Alienating the asset either by lease or sale, etc. and appointing a person to manage the secured asset are some of those possible measures. On the other hand, Section 14 authorises the Magistrate only to take possession of the property and forward the asset along with the connected documents to the borrower (sic the secured creditor). Therefore, the borrower is always entitled to prefer an “appeal” under Section 17 after the possession of the secured asset is handed over to the secured creditor. Section 13(4)(a) declares that the secured creditor may take possession of the secured assets. It does not specify whether such a possession is to be obtained directly by the secured creditor or by resorting to the procedure under Section 14. We are of the opinion that by whatever manner the secured creditor obtains possession either through the process contemplated under Section 14 or without resorting to such a process obtaining of the possession of a secured asset is always a measure against which a remedy under Section 17 is available.”

6. Thus, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases that the action taken by the respondent-Bank not only under Section 13(