Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 2837
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Om Narayan Rai, J
NARAYAN CHANDRA SARKAR AND ANR. – Appellant
Versus
THE ICICI BANK LIMITED AND ORS. – Respondent
WPA/1479/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Partha Sarathi Das, Mr. Sampad Das, Ms. Avipsha Dutta Roy
For the Respondents: Mr. Milindo Paul, Mr. Nabankur Paul, Ms. Sutapa Sen Paul, Mr. Bedashruti Bose, Mr. Subham Das, Mr. Bodhisatya Ghosh
High Courts should refrain from interfering in SARFAESI Act matters, emphasizing alternative remedies before Debts Recovery Tribunals.
Headnote:This case concerns the interpretation of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Section 14). The petitioner challenged an order made by the District Magistrate, asserting procedural irregularities. The court confirmed that the order is reviewable before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, emphasizing the availability of alternative remedies under Section 17. The court stated, 'High Courts should be slow to interfere in matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act, 2002.' As a result, the writ petition is not entertained, allowing the petitioner to pursue remedies before the Tribunal.
The writ petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated June 17, 2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, on an application under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act, 2002) filed by the ICICI Bank.
It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that although a notice of hearing was served upon the petitioner indicating that hearing would be taken on April 25, 2025 at 10:30 a.m. in the chamber of the Additional District Magistrate (G), Jalpaiguri, and the hearing was also conducted by the Additional District Magistrate (G), Jalpaiguri, yet the order has been passed by the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri. It is submitted that if hearing was taken by the Additional District Magistrate (G), Jalpaiguri, the order could not have been passed by the District Magistrate, Jalpaiguri.
The Bank is represented.
It has time and again been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that High Courts should be slow to interfere in matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in writ jurisdiction. It is well settled now that passing an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is actually a step/measure under Section 13 (4) of the said Act which is assailable before the relevant Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the said Act. Since the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the instant writ petition is not entertained.
The petitioner is left free to pursue its remedies before the appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal in accordance with law.
