HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13529/2021

Ratan Lal Jat S/o Dola Ram Jat, Aged About 74 Years, Kakarliyon

Ki Dhani Bhojpura Khurd, Tehsil Kishangarh Rainwal, Dist.

Jaipur-303604

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

Au Small Finance Ltd. Bank, Through Its Authorized

Representative, Shri Shiv Raj Singh, Correspondents

Address At Au Square B-11-E Malviya Nagar Industrial

Area, Jaipur-302017, (Raj.)

2.

Au Small Finance Ltd. Bank, Through Its Authorized

Representative, Shri Mahi Pal Singh, Registered Office

Address At 19-A, Dhuleshwar Garden, Ajmer Road,

Jaipur-302001, (Raj.) Office G-18, Bapuji Marg, Behind

Ioc Petrol Pump, Sehakar Marg, Jaipur-302001

3.

Au Small Finance Ltd. Bank, Through Its Authorized

Officer, Branch Manager, Registered Office Address At 19-

A, Dhuleshwar Garden, Ajmer Road, Jaipur-302001,

(Raj.), Correspondents Address At Au Square B-11-E

Malviya Nagar Industrial Area, Jaipur-302017, (Raj.)

4.

Au Small Finance Ltd. Bank, Through Its Authorized

Representative, Shri Bhupendar Singh Jalal, Registered

Office Address At 19-A, Dhuleshwar Garden, Ajmer Road,

Jaipur-302001, (Raj.) Branch Address - 28-33 Shopping

Centre, Sector 9, Madhyam Marg, Mansarovar, District

Jaipur, Rajasthan-302020, Correspondent Address - Au

Centre, 3Rd Floor, Sunny Trade Centre, New Aatish

Market, Mansarovar, Jaipur

5.

Au Small Finance Ltd. Bank, Through Its Authorized

Representative, Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh, Registered

Office Address At 19-A, Dhuleshwar Garden, Ajmer Road,

Jaipur-302001, (Raj.) Branch Address - 28-33 Shopping

Centre, Sector 9, Madhyam Marg, Mansarovar, District

Jaipur, Rajasthan-302020.

----Respondents

(2 of 4)

[CW-13529/2021]

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Sanwar Mal

For Respondent(s)

:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

23/11/2021

Admittedly, the petitioner is having alternative remedy

before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act, 2002 against the possession notice issued by the

Financial Institution.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of

Travancore and anr. Vs. Mathew K.C. reported in (2018) 3

SCC 85, has held as under:-

“9. Even prior to the SARFAESI Act, considering the

alternate remedy available under the DRT Act it

was held in Punjab National Bank Vs. O.C. Krishnan

and others, (2001) 6 SCC 569, that :-

“6. The Act has been enacted with a view

to provide a special procedure for recovery of

debts due to the banks and the financial

institutions. There is a hierarchy of appeal

provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal

under Section 20 and this fast-track procedure

cannot be allowed to be derailed either by

taking recourse to proceedings under Articles

226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a

civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even

though a provision under an Act cannot

expressly oust the jurisdiction of the court

under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution,

nevertheless, when there is an alternative

remedy available, judicial prudence demands

that the Court refrains from exercising its

jurisdiction under the said constitutional

provisions. This was a case where the High

Court should not have entertained the petition

under Article 227 of the Constitution and

should have directed the respondent to take

recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by

the Act.”

10. In Satyawati Tandon (supra), the High

Court had restrained further proceedings under

(3 of 4)

[CW-13529/2021]

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 and the appellate remedy under

Section 18 before the Appellate Tribu