High Courts must refrain from exercising writ jurisdiction when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available. Disputes concerning loan settlements and the release of security documentation involve factual questions that must be adjudicated by the competent debt recovery tribunals, rather than through judicial review.

JUDGMENT :

Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J.

1. Heard Shri Apoorv Dev, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Shri Alok Saxena, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 as well as Shri Praveen Dwivedi, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 and perused the record.

2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, seeking direction to the respondent- Canara Bank to return the original title deed to one of the petitioners, who had deposited the same at the time of mortgage. Further, direction has been sought against the respondent- Canara Bank to issue No Dues Certificate in favour of the petitioners and also to pay compensation cost of Rs. 5,000/- per day with effect from 11.11.2023 to the actual date of release of title deed as per the Reserve Bank of India Circular dated 13.09.2023.

3. The factual matrix of the present lis lie in a narrow compass, the petitioner no. 1 is a partnership firm and the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are its partners. Apparently, the firm availed a financial facility to the tune of Rs.70 Lacs from the respondent- Canara Bank and the petitioner no. 2 stood as a Guarantor and petitioner no. 3 mortgaged his property bearing Plot No.46, Khasra No.1581, Gopal Vihar, Village Malyana, Pargana, Tehsil and District Meerut, ad-measuring area 142.56 square meter, by depositing the original title deed with the respondent- Canara Bank.

4. Presumably, the petitioners failed to service the said financial facility granted by the respondent- Canara Bank and approached the respondent- Canara Bank for settlement of their dues and also offered for O.T.S. proposal. However, the respondent- Canara Bank did not accede to the request of the petitioners and in the intervening period got published a sale notice for action of the mortgaged property and also obtained an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 so as to obtain the physical possession of the property.

5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid action of the respondent- Canara Bank, the petitioners approached learned Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRT') under Section 17 of the SARFEASI Act, 2002 by filing Securitization Application No. 443 of 2022. Admittedly, during the pendency of the said securitization application, the respondent-Canara Bank sold the mortgaged property to the highest bidder for an amount of Rs. 62 Lacs and during the time the amount was being deposited by the highest bidder, the petitioners expressed their willingness to settle by making payment of Rs. 70 Lacs to the respondent- Canara Bank.

6. The learned DRT, while considering the aforesaid request of the petitioners for settlement for an amount of Rs.70 Lacs, vide an order dated 27.07.2023 directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs. 20 Lacs within one week and further to pay rest of the amount of Rs.50 Lacs within two months i.e. before 26.09.2023.

7. The said order dated 27.07.2023 was modified on the same day during post-lunch session, wherein the learned DRT directed the petitioners not only to pay the aforesaid amount but also to pay additional amount of interest as applicable to a FDR on the 25% amount deposited by the highest bidder/auction purchaser to the respondent- Canara Bank.

8. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioners have deposited an mount of Rs. 22,50,000/- on 22.09.2023, however, fai