The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to exhaust statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act and DRT Act before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters involving recovery of dues by banks and financial institutions.

JUDGMENT

Sant Parkash, J. - (The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing since the proceedings are being conducted in virtual court)

2. 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, quashing notice dated 06.01.2021 (Annexure P-3) by respondent No.5, whereby the petitioner has been directed to vacate the property so that physical possession be given to respondent No.1 and further for issuance necessary directions to respondents to release/de-seal the properties of petitioner, which have been sealed illegally.

3. Succinctly, petitioner applied for loan with respondent-Bank and loan was sanctioned for 210 buffaloes, whereas petitioner was given Rs. 1,14,00,000/-for 120 buffaloes @ Rs.95,000/- per buffalo. Rest of the amount for remaining 90 buffaloes was not given to the petitioner. Petitioner was paying his installments of loan timely but still he has received a notice from the learned DRT-II, Chandigarh. Thereafter, petitioner came to know that respondent-bank has filed petition under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 for issuance of recovery certificate to proceed against the petitioner.. On 08.01.2021, respondents came to the petitioner and threatened him to deliver physical possession of the property before 15.01.2021, but he told them that matter is already pending and nobody is authorised to proceed in the matter. Again on 15.01.2021, respondent came to the petitioner and provided copy of impugned notice dated 06.01.2021 and copy of order dated 08.01.2021 passed by this Court in CWP No.31 of 2021 (Annexure P-4), whereby the petitioner was asked to deliver the physical possession of the property to them and respondents forcibly took over the physical possession of the property.

4. Pursuant to notice of motion, reply by way of affidavit of Mr. Srinivasarao Battu, Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India has been filed. The same is taken on record.

5. Perusal of affidavit reveals that the loan was duly sanctioned by the respondent bank on certain terms and conditions as well as upon the mortgage of different properties, but on account of non-payment of the dues of the respondent-bank in spite of the regular follow-up, the account of the petitioner slipped to the Non-performing Asset dated 31.03.2018 and the respondent-Bank initiated the recovery process under SARFAESI Act by issuing the notice (Annexure R-l), which was duly acknowledged by the petitioner and guarantor. Since, the petitioner did not prefer to file the objections, the respondent-Bank moved to District Magistrate, Jind for granting/delivering of the possession of the secured assets to the respondent-Bank. The District Magistrate vide order dated 05.11.2018 (Annexure R-2), appointed the Tehsildar as the Duty Magistrate and forwarded the order to Superintendent of Police for providing sufficient police security and hand over the possession of secured assets. Now, the respondent-bank has received the possession of the secured assets of the petitioner.

6. In view of the averments made in the affidavit/reply, it has become crystal clear that the possession of the secured assets has already been taken over by the respondent-bank.

7. In the given circumstances, the appropriate and efficacious remedy available with the petitioner is to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The law in this regard is already settled that when appropriate forum is provided under the SARFAESI Act, this Court stands injuncted from interfering with any matter arising out of the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, no ground for interference is made out particularly, in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tan don and others, reported as (2010) 8 SCC 110, wherein the Apex Court held as under:-

"17. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If Respondent 1 had any tan