Back
LISA GILL, RITU TAGORE
Ashish Mathur – Appellant
Versus
ICICI Bank Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Lisa Gill, J. (Oral)
Prayer in this writ petition is for quashing notice dated 17.08.2020 (Annexure P-9) under Section 13(2) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act), 2002, notice(s) dated 12.03.2021 (Annexure P- 10) and 14.07.2022 (Annexure P-14) under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act and notice dated 14.09.2023 (Annexure P-15) issued by Tehsildar, Ludhiana pursuant to order dated 23.08.2023, passed by District Magistrate, Ludhiana under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act.
2. It is submitted that petitioners had availed of three loan facilities in the year 2014 for a sum of Rs.97,83,000/-. Residential house as described in the writ petition was mortgaged with the respondent- Bank. It is further submitted that due to outbreak of the pandemic Covid-19, petitioners suffered a financial crunch and there was delay in deposit of EMIs. Petitioners also had to face fraud being committed against them by one of their purchasers in respect of which FIR No.269 under Section 420 IPC was registered at Police Station Division No.3, Ludhiana. Petitioners represented before the respondent-Bank for rescheduling their account. Their
SARFAESI Act provides a comprehensive mechanism for borrowers to address grievances, and High Courts should exercise restraint in intervention unless extraordinary circumstances arise.
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to intervene in proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, reinforcing the necessity for adherence to the statutory remedy framework prior to court interference.
Judicial restraint is required under Article 226 when alternative statutory remedies are available, especially in financial recovery matters.
The SARFAESI Act, 2002 provides a complete code with alternative efficacious remedies, and the extraordinary writ jurisdiction should only be invoked in exceptional circumstances.
The SARFAESI Act provides specific remedies for grievances, and borrowers do not have a vested right to One Time Settlement benefits, which are subject to the bank's discretion.
Legal action under the SARFAESI Act is not barred by concurrent proceedings under the DRT, and where an efficacious alternative remedy exists, a writ petition is unsustainable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
