The main legal point established in the judgment is that when an alternative efficacious remedy is available under the SARFAESI Act, the High Court should not entertain a writ petition and must insist on exhausting statutory remedies before availing constitutional remedies.

JUDGMENT

Sant Parkash, J. - The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the impugned order dated 01.04.2021 (P-5) passed by the District Magistrate, Faridabad, whereby receiver was appointed to take physical possession of secured assets/mortgaged property in the name of petitioner No.2.

2. Succinctly, the petitioner-firm had taken a term loan of Rs. 30 lakhs and also availed a cash credit limit of Rs. 10 lakhs from the respondent-Bank in the month of April, 2017 against immovable property owned and possessed by petitioner No.2 bearing Khata No.50/47, Mustkel No.175, Killa No.23(8-0), 24 (8-0), Mustkel No.187, Killa No.3/2(5-0), 4/1 (7-7), 4/2(0-13) situated at Palli Ballabgarh Road, Faridabad. The petitioner-firm was regularly paying the installments of the loan amount upto 30.06.2019. Thereafter, due to default of the petitioners in payment of installments of the above-said loan amount, respondent-Bank declared the loan accounts of the petitioner-firm as Non-Performing Asset (NPA). The respondent-Bank issued notice dated 06.07.2019 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Subsequently, the respondent-Bank in the light of notice dated 06.07.2019 filed an application dated 26.02.2020 (P-3) before the District Magistrate, Faridabad, seeking possession of the secured asset of the petitioner-firm in terms of Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Vide impugned order dated 01.04.2021 (P-5), the District Magistrate, Faridabad appointed a receiver to take possession of the secured assets of the petitioner-firm.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-firm submits that the petitioner-firm had taken loan of Rs. 40 lakhs only out of which the petitionerfirm had already repaid Rs. 36,23,609/- but the respondent-Bank is adamant to take the possession of the secured assets of the petitioner No.2, who is guarantor of the said loan amount. He further submits that the the petitioner-firm is ready to repay the outstanding amount along with simple interest, if some reasonable time is provided for this purpose. He finally submits that the impugned order dated 01.04.2021 (P-5) has been passed without following the provisions of law and without appreciating the unavoidable circumstances of the petitioner-firm and, thus, the same is liable to be quashed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable as disputed questions of fact are involved therein. Loan account involved in the present writ petition belongs to M/s Satpal Enterprises and petitioner No.2 is director/mortgagor/guarantor in the loan account, which was declared as NPA on 30.06.2019 as per guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India. Accordingly, notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 06.07.2019 to repay the outstanding amount within 60 days. He next submits that an amount of Rs. 52,08,517.70 is outstanding towards the petitioner-Firm as on 30.06.2021. He also submits that moreover, the petitioner-firm has an alternate statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal and without exhausting this remedy, petitioner has no locus to approach this Court.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. However, we are of the view that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner-firm is a defaulter of respondentBank. It is further not in dispute that the respondent-bank initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 by approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the property in question has been put to auction by invoking Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Once that it so, we do not see how the present petition is maintainable as disputed questions of fact and law are being raised before us, especially when there is no such document on record which could show that respondent-Bank ha