Court No. - 9

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 9751 of 2021

Petitioner :- M/S Sine Cloth Emporium

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Kuldeep Kumar

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anadi Krishna Narayana

Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,Acting Chief Justice

Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.

The matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

Sri Kuldeep Kumar, learned counsel appears on behalf of

petitioner.

Sri Anadi Krishna Narayan, learned counsel appears on

behalf of respondent no.4.

The grievance raised by the petitioner is against the initiation

of proceeding under Section 13 of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities

Interest Act, 2002.

In the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon and

Others, (2010) 8 SCC 110 wherein in paragraph 42 and 43 it is

held:

"42. There is another reason why the impugned order

should be set aside. If respondent No.1 had any tangible

grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or

action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed

remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1). The

expression `any person' used in Section 17(1) is of wide

import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but

also guarantor or any other person who may be affected by

the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both,

the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to

pass interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are

required to decide the matters within a fixed time

schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to

an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both

expeditious and effective.

43.Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled

law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an

effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and

that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters

involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of

public money and the dues of banks and other financial

institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions

involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the

public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that

the legislations enacted by Parliament and State

Legislatures for recovery of such dues are code unto

themselves inasmuch as they not only contain

comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also

envisage constitution of quasi judicial bodies for redressal

of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all

such cases, High Court must insist that before availing

remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person

must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant

statute."

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court the

petitioner has a remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act

before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, therefore, we are not inclined to

cause any indulgence.

Consequently, petition is dismissed with the liberty to

petitioner to seek redressal of his grievance before Debt Recovery

Tribunal.

Order Date :- 19.4.2021

N Tiwari

(Prakash Padia,J) (Sanjay Yadav,A.C.J.)

2