The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act prevail over conflicting provisions in the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and the court may exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 in certain circumstances despite the availability of an alternative remedy.

S.K. Gangele, J.

1. The question for consideration in this Writ Appeal before this court is that whether in view of Section 35 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the "SARFAESI Act"), the Registrar can entertain a dispute under Section 64 of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to the "Act of 1960") in regard to recovery of loan advanced to a member by the Cooperative Bank.

2. The appellant, a Co-operative Bank registered under the provisions of the Act of 1960, granted facility of over draft to the respondent No. 3. Subsequently, the account was transferred as cash credit account. The respondent No. 3 did not pay the amount as received by him from the appellant bank as cash credit, hence, the appellant bank initiated proceeding under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. A notice under Section 13(2)of the SARFAESI Act was issued to the respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 filed a dispute before the nominee of the Registrar i.e. Joint Registrar, under Section 64 of the Act of 1960 and challenged the action of the appellant bank. Respondent No. 3 also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction. The Joint Registrar vide order dt. 27.12.2012 granted temporary injunction in favour of the respondent No. 3 and restrained the Bank from proceeding further against the respondent No. 3. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant Bank in a Writ Petition. The Writ Court dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the appellant has an alternative statutory remedy to file an appeal against the order before the Cooperative Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant Bank has contended that the appellant questioned the jurisdiction of the Registrar to entertain the dispute under Section 64 of the Act of 1960 in view of the provisions of Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, hence, the Writ Court has committed an error of law in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 has contended that the Writ Court has rightly dismissed the petition on the ground of alternative remedy. Learned counsel further contended that the provisions contained in Section 64 of the Act of 1960 would prevail over the provisions of Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act.

5. First of all we would like to consider the question that whether in view of the provisions contained in Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act, the jurisdiction of the Registrar is ousted to entertain the dispute in regard to recovery of the amount of cash credit limit, which was advanced by the Bank in favour of the respondent No. 3.

6. It is not in dispute that initially the Bank had advanced an over draft facility in favour of the respondent No. 3, subsequently in pursuance to the instruction of Reserve Bank of India, account was transferred as Cash Credit Account bearing Account No. 96601. There was outstanding amount in the account of the respondent No. 3, it did not pay the amount, hence, the bank issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002 in regard to recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,50,317/-. Notice was also published in a news paper. The respondent No. 3 raised a dispute before nominee of the Registrar i.e. Joint Registrar and pleaded that the appellant Bank is not entitled to recover the amount as claimed in the notice and no amount was due. Alongwith the plaint, an application under Section 67(1) of the Act of 1960 read with Order 39 Rule (1) and (2) and Section 151 of CPC for grant of injunction was also filed.

7. The appellant Bank in the reply to the application for grant of injunction pleaded that an amount of Rs. 1,50,317/- was due against the respondent No. 3. The statement of account was forwarded to the respondent No. 3. The appellant Bank filed an application to dismiss the dispute pleading that in view of the provisions cont