Back
AJIT KUMAR
Kasturi Devi Sheetalaya Pvt Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Presiding Officer Debt Recovery Tribunal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Alok Rai and Ms. Eshita Sand, learned counsel for the contesting respondent bank.
2. The petitioners have invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking challenge to the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal upon a miscellaneous application bearing No.-40 of 2024 (Kasturi Devi Sheetalaya Pvt. Ltd. v. Bank of India) arising out of Securitization Application No.- 461 of 2022.
3. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned counsel for the contesting respondent-bank that the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy to prefer an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act, 2002') and this Court, therefore, may not interfere invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has further relied upon a recent judgment of Supreme Court in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society
The High Court should not interfere in matters arising under the SARFAESI Act when an effective alternative remedy is available, reinforcing the principle of exhausting statutory remedies before seek....
Powers of High Court under Article 226 cannot be invoked in matter of recovery of dues under Act, unless there is any statutory violation resulting in prejudice to party or where such proceedings or ....
It is settled law that Tribunal has power to do everything which is incidental or ancillary for proper exercise of jurisdiction vested in it.
As a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say the least, for the subordinate courts including the High Courts to ignore the settled decisions and....
The court established that compliance with statutory provisions is essential in possession proceedings under the Securitisation Act, and alternative remedies must be exhausted before seeking judicial....
The main legal point established in this judgment is that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters involving recovery of dues under....
Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised when an effective alternative remedy exists under statutory provisions, thereby emphasizing self-restraint by High Courts in recovery matte....
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
