Back
2011 Supreme(All) 1085
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Satya Poot Mehrotra, S.C.Agarwal, JJ.
Rajesh Pal -Appellant
Versus
Chief Manager/Authorized Officer, Allahabad Bank Zonal Office, Kanpur Nagar and Another -Respondent
C.M.W.P.No.20847 of 2011
Decided On : 11-04-2011
Counsel for the Petitioner:S.C.Pandey., Counsel for the Respondents: P.N.Tripathi and C.S.C.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in view of the alternative remedy available under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the High Court should normally not interfere in the proceedings being taken under the Act.
Headnote:
Alternative Remedy - Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - The court held that in view of the alternative remedy available under the Act, the High Court should normally not interfere in the proceedings being taken under the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner took a housing loan from the respondent bank and defaulted on the loan. Proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 were initiated, and the petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash the order passed under the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner of filing an Appeal/Application under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court should interfere in the proceedings being taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, in view of the alternative remedy available under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyavati Tandon and others, which held that the High Court should normally not interfere in the proceedings being taken under the Act due to the availability of an alternative remedy.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to avail the alternative remedy of filing an Appeal/Application under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
1. We have heard Shri S.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1-Allahabad Bank.
2. As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the petitioner took housing loan from the respondent no.1- Bank. The property in question was given as security for the said loan. Default was committed in respect of the said loan. Consequently, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short " the Act") have been initiated. Sale Certificate dated 4.10.2008 has been filed as Annexure-4A to the Writ Petition. An order dated 25.2.2011 under Section 14 of the Act has also been passed, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition.
3. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, interalia, praying for quashing the said order dated 25.2.2011.
4. In United Bank of India Vs. Satyavati Tandon and others reported in 2010 (8) SCC 110 =2010 AIR SCW 5267, their Lordships of the Surpeme Court have laid down that in view of the alternative remedy available under the Act, the High Court in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should normally not interfere in respect of the proceedings being taken under the Act.
5. In the present Writ Petition, the petitioner has impugned the proceedings being taken against him on various grounds.
6. It is true that in view of sub-section (3) of Section 14 of the Act, Appeal/Application under Section 17 of the Act will not lie against the Order passed under Section 14 of the Act. However, the proceedings under Section 14 of the Act are in the nature of execution proceedings for enforcing the action/measure taken under Section 13(4) of the Act. While Appeal/Application under Section 17 of the Act may not lie against the Order passed under Section 14 of the Act, such Appeal/Application under Section 17 of the Act will lie against the action/measure taken under Section 13(4) of the Act.
7. Reference in this regard may be made to the following decisions:
(1) Virendra Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar and another, 2010 (1) AWC 832.
(2) Bharat Lal Vs. Punjab Nation Bank Housing Finance Limited through its Branch Manager, Varanasi and others, 2010 (80) ALR 580.
8. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyavati Tandon and others (supra) and having regard to the nature of the controversy involved in the present Writ Petition, we are of the opinion that the petitioner be relegated to avail the alternative remedy of filing Appeal/Application under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
9. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy available to the petitioner of filing Appeal/Application under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
