Back
2021 Supreme(P&H) 731
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sanjay Kumar, Archana Puri, JJ.
Ram Mehar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The District Magistrate, Panipat, & Ors. - Respondents
CWP No. 2096 of 2021
Decided On : 29-01-2021
Mr. Vinod Khunger, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved through a writ petition, and alternative statutory remedies should be pursued.
Headnote:
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Possession Notice - Disputed demand notice - Alternative remedy under Section 17 - Writ petition dismissed
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenge a possession notice issued by Phoenix ARC Private Limited under Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002, claiming they were not served a demand notice under Section 13(2) by Bajaj Finance Limited, the third respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the possession notice referenced a demand notice issued to the petitioners, and the disputed question of fact regarding the receipt of the demand notice cannot be resolved by the writ court. The petitioners were directed to avail the alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Act of 2002.
Issues: Disputed receipt of demand notice, availability of alternative remedy under Section 17
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disputed question of fact cannot be resolved through a writ petition and directed the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy under Section 17 of the Act of 2002.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, with the petitioners being advised to pursue the statutory remedy available to them.
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kumar, J. (Oral). - The petitioners assail the possession notice dated Nil issued by the Phoenix ARC Private Limited, the second respondent, under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, 'the Act of 2002'). It is their case that they were not served a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 by Bajaj Finance Limited, the third respondent, from whom they had availed loan facilities. They contend that the second respondent, having stepped into the shoes of the third respondent, straightway issued the impugned possession notice.
2. However, perusal of the impugned possession notice shows that reference was made therein to demand notice dated 06.09.2019 issued to the petitioners.
3. Mr. Vinod Khunger, learned counsel for the petitioners, would strenuously assert that the said demand notice was never received by them.
4. However, such a disputed question of fact cannot be resolved by the writ Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution. An efficacious alternative remedy is provided to the petitioners under the statute by way of an application before the jurisdictional Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 (See 'Jagdish Singh V/s. Heeralal and others', [(2014) 1 SCC 479] and State Bank of Travancore V/s. Mathew KC [(2018) 3 SCC 85]). It is for the petitioners to avail the said remedy and prove their case.
5. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to take recourse to the statutory remedy available to them in accordance with the due procedure laid down by law.
6. No order as to costs.
