[2025:RJ-JD:54958]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2791/2004 M/s. Agro Polymers P. Ltd., Udaipur 220, Ashok Nagar, Udaipur ----Petitioner Versus

1. Union of India Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Finance Deptt. Of Revenue, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.

2. Central Bank of India through its Chairman, Chandramukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai.

3. The Debt Recovery Tribunal through its Registrar, Nehru Palace, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.L. Khatri JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

18/12/2025

1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned notice issue by the respondent-Bank under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “the Act of 2002”).

2. An objection has been taken by counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the aforesaid order is appeallable under Section 17 of the Act of 2002, but without availing the alternative statutory remedy of filing an application/appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short “DRT”), the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tandon & Ors. reported in 2010 (8) SCC 110 has deprecated the practice of High Courts entertaining such petitions where alternative statutory remedies are available to the aggrieved party under the Act of 2002 or under the Recovery of Debts & Bankruptcy Act, 1993. Learned counsel submits that, on this count alone, the instant writ petition is liable to be rejected.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record.

5. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the respondents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Act of 2002, is appealable before the DRT. However, without availing the statutory remedy of filing an application/appeal under the provisions of the Act of 2002, the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition, bypassing the jurisdiction of the DRT. Even the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India (supra) has held in Para 55, which reads as under:-

“55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.”

6. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter that the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of filing an appeal/application before the DRT, this Court is not inclined to entertain the instant writ petition.

7. On this count alone, the writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file the appellate statutory application/appeal under the provisions of the Act of 2002 before DRT.

8. In case, such application/appeal is preferred by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today, it is expected from the DRT to decide the said application/appeal in accordance with law expeditiously, as early as possible, ignoring the period of limitation.

9. All pending applications (if any) also stand disposed of.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/74