JUDGMENT

Mrs. Lisa Gill, J.

Petitioner in this writ petition is aggrieved of proceedings initiated by the respondent-Bank against him under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the SARFAESI Act). There is a prayer for quashing notice dated 16.05.2019 (Annexure P-2) under Section 13 (2) of SARFAESI Act and further proceedings arising thereafter. There is a further prayer for directing the respondents to consider restructuring/regularization of loan account of the petitioner on the premise that he is willing to pay the entire defaulted amount.

2. Notice of motion was issued in this writ petition by co-ordinate Bench on 19.07.2019. Status quo regarding possession of the property was directed to be maintained, subject to deposit of Rs. 9,00,000/- by the petitioner within a period of two weeks therefrom. It was clarified that in case, the amount in question is not deposited, interim order in favour of the petitioner would automatically cease to operate.

3. Deposit in terms of said order was not made and conditions of a subsequent OTS sanctioned by the Bank in October, 2020 were also not complied with. Vide order dated 22.07.2022, in this writ petition, the matter was adjourned at request of the petitioner to enable him to approach the respondent- Bank for a fresh One Time Settlement (OTS) as the OTS sanctioned in October, 2020 could not be complied with by him. It was clarified that there is no interim order in favour of the petitioner. No settlement has been arrived at.

4. Apart from the fact and circumstances as above, it is undeniable that petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy for redressal of his grievance and all the pleas which have been raised by the petitioner in this writ petition, can very well be adjudicated upon and decided by the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

5. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has held that the High Court should desist from interference in such matters under the Sarfaesi Act in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been categorically held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when a Tribunal is constituted under the Act, it is expected to consider the issues of law and fact/s involved. Interference in the matters under the Sarfaesi Act, except under extraordinary and exceptional circumstances has been frowned upon and deprecated. Gainful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010(8) SCC 110, Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu and others, 2023(1) RCR (Civil) 34, M/s South Indian Bank Ltd. and others v. Naveen Mathew Philip and another, 2023 (2) RCR (Civil) 771 and Division Bench judgment of this High Court in CWP No.10738 of 2022 (M/s Harinder Fabrics v. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.) decided on 04.05.2023. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of M/s South Indian Bank (supra) held as under:-

"13 We may, however, reiterate the settled position of law on the interference of the High Court invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India in commercial matters, where an effective and efficacious alternative forum has been constituted through a statute.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

14. A writ of certiorari is to be issued over a decision when the Court finds that the process does not conform to the law or statute. In other words, courts are not expected to substitute themselves with the decision-making authority while finding fault with the process along with the reasons assigned. Such a writ is not exp