JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Vacation Judge.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. By way of instant petition, petitioner has challenged the proceedings initiated by the respondents/Bank under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI). A Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.5730/2020, titled as M/s Amar Traders Vs. Punjab National Bank & Others, decided Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? on 17.12.2020, relying upon various pronouncements of Hon’ble Apex Court, held that when an efficacious alternative remedy under the SARFAESI Act is available to the petitioner then the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall not be maintainable. Relevant portion thereof reads as under:-

“4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has strongly deprecated the tendency of the High Courts in entertaining the writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the aggrieved persons without availing alternative and efficacious remedy available to them and more particularly, in the matters, which arise under the SARFAESI Act.

“5. In State Bank of Travancore vs. Mathew K.C., (2018) 3 SCC 85, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with alternative remedy under the SARFAESI Act held as under:-

3. The SARFAESI Act is a complete code by itself, providing for expeditious recovery of dues arising out of loans granted by financial institutions, the remedy of appeal by the aggrieved under Section 17 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, followed by a right to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18. The High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition in view of the adequate alternate statutory remedies available to the Respondent. The interim order was passed on the very first date, without an opportunity to the Appellant to file a reply. Reliance was placed on United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010 (8) SCC 110, and General Manager, Sri Siddeshwara Cooperative Bank Limited and another vs. Ikbal and others, 2013 (10) SCC 83. The writ petition ought to have been dismissed at the threshold on the ground of maintainability. The Division Bench erred in declining to interfere with the same.

4. xxx

5. xxx

6. xxx

7. xxx

8. The statement of objects and reasons of the SARFAESI Act states that the banking and financial sector in the country was felt not to have a level playing field in comparison to other participants in the financial markets in the world. The financial institutions in India did not have the power to take possession of securities and sell them. The existing legal framework relating to commercial transactions had not kept pace with changing commercial practices and financial sector reforms resulting in tardy recovery of defaulting loans and mounting non-performing assets of banks and financial institutions. The Narasimhan Committee I and II as also the Andhyarujina Committee constituted by the Central Government Act had suggested enactment of new legislation for securitisation and empowering banks and financial institutions to take possession of securities and sell them without court intervention which would enable them to realise long term assets, manage problems of liquidity, asset liability mismatches and improve recovery. The proceedings under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DRT Act’) with passage of time, had become synonymous with those before regular courts affecting expeditious adjudication. All these aspects have not been kept in mind and considered before passing the impugned order.

9. xxx

10. In Satyawati Tandon (supra), the High Court had restrained further proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Act. Upon a detailed consideration of the statutory scheme under the SARFAESI Act, the availability of remedy to the aggrieved under Section 17 before the Tribunal