9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal and sale conducted by State Bank of India. 2. Failure to serve notice under section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 3. Argument regarding the availability of statutory alternative remedy under section 18 of the Act. 4. Consideration of whether the High Court should entertain a petition under article 226 despite the availability of an effective alternative remedy. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought to quash the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal and the sale conducted by the State Bank of India for the realisation of its dues. The petitioner alleged that the Bank released the entire loan amount for purchasing a flat without ensuring the completion of construction work by the builder as per the agreement. The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's application under section 17 of the Act without serving notice under section 13(2) of the Act, leading to legal challenges. 2. The petitioner argued that the Tribunal erred in not considering the failure to serve the notice under section 13(2) of the Act as a condition precedent for taking action under section 13(4). The petitioner contended that this failure should have annulled the notice under section 13(4) and subsequent actions by the Bank. The legal counsel emphasized the importance of fulfilling statutory requirements before resorting to enforcement measures under the Act. 3. The respondent's counsel contended that the petitioner should have availed the statutory alternative remedy of appeal under section 18 of the Act instead of approaching the High Court directly. The failure to exhaust this remedy was cited as a reason for dismissing the writ petition. The argument focused on the availability of a specific legal recourse provided by the Act for addressing grievances related to the actions of financial institutions. 4. The High Court deliberated on whether to entertain a petition under article 226 of the Constitution despite the existence of an effective alternative remedy. Citing precedents, the Court highlighted the discretionary nature of exercising jurisdiction under article 226 in the presence of alternative remedies. Various Supreme Court judgments were referenced to underscore the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief through writ petitions, especially in matters concerning financial disputes and legal procedures outlined in specific legislation like the Act. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the availability of an effective alternative remedy under section 18 of the Act for the petitioner to address the grievances raised. The judgment underscored the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and exhausting prescribed remedies before seeking judicial intervention through writ petitions, aligning with established legal principles and precedents outlined by the Supreme Court.
|
