Writ petition not maintainable against proceedings under the SARFAESI Act when statutory remedies are available.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioners 1 and 2, who have mortgaged their properties to the 1st respondent-Canara Bank, have filed this OP(DRT) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the order dated 16.11.2023 in IA No.2772/2023 in SA No.436/2023 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam. The petitioners also seek to set aside Ext.P7 sale notice.

2. The prime ground urged by the petitioners is that properties which are proceeded against by the 1st respondent-Bank, are agricultural land and are exempted under Section 31 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, : 4 :

2002. Even though the petitioners submitted objections pointing out that the land is agricultural land, the 1st respondent-Bank is illegally proceeding against the properties.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is against the steps taken by the 1st respondent-Bank invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,

2002.

5. It is settled law that no writ would lie against the proceedings initiated by a financial institution under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. In United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and others [(2010) 8 SCC 110] , the Hon’ble Apex Court declared that no writ petition shall be entertained against the proceedings initiated under the SARFAESI Act at the instance of a defaulter since the statute : 5 :

provides for an efficacious alternate remedy.

6. In the judgment in Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. [2018 (1) KLT 784], the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that no writ petition would lie against the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act in view of the statutory remedy available under the said Act.

7. Following the judgment in Satyawati Tondon (supra), a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Anilkumar v. State Bank of India [2020 (2) KLT 756]

declined to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the proceedings initiated under the Securitisation Act.

8. In South Indian Bank Limited v. Naveen Mathew Philip [2023 (4) KLT 29] , the Apex Court held that when the legislature has provided a specific mechanism for appropriate redressal, the powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances.

: 6 :

9. In Jayakrishnan A. v. Union Bank of India and others (W.P.(C) No.30803/2023), this Court held that writ petition challenging any proceedings under the Securitisation Act is not maintainable since the aggrieved person has an effective and efficacious remedy before the Tribunal constituted under the Act which is competent to adjudicate the issues of fact and law, including statutory violations.

In the light of the categorical pronouncements of law made by the Apex Court and by this Court, the above writ petition is not maintainable and it is dismissed.