TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 253X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es before the Tribunal. In the aforesaid view, this petition is dismissed, relating the petitioners to avail the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case. The petition stands dismissed of as not entertained subject to above. - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18262 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 30-11-2016 - MR. N.V.ANJARIA, J. FOR THE PETITIONER : MR PAVAN S GODIAWALA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR NAGESH C SOOD, ADVOCATE CAV ORDER It is with the following prayers that the petitioners have filed the present petition invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, (i) To set aside the action of the respond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Notice under Section 13(2) dated 10.07.2015 was issued whereunder it was stated by the Bank that a sum of ₹ 59,10,30,925.64in words Rupees Fifty Nine Crores Ten Lacs Thirty Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Five and Sixty Four Paiseincluding the penal interest as on 10.07.2015 was due and payable. It appears that the petitioners made a representation under Section 13(3)(a) of the Act. It is the case of the petitioners that the Bank remained silent and proposed to initiate action under Section 13(4) of the Act. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Pavan Godiawala for the petitioners highlighted the various grounds set out in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry response from petitioner No.1 company as well as its directors. (c) Regarding the revival plan submitted by the petitioners vide letter dated 03.09.2015, the Bank had responded to petitioner No.1 company on 08.09.2015 by Registered Post. Despite restructuring of account on 24.03.2014, the petitioner company's account was running irregular. Due to LC development and non payment of interest since December 2014, the term loan account was also running irregular since January 2014. (d) The respondent Bank asked petitioner No.1 company by letter dated 16.04.2015 regarding furnishing of collateral security, that is, land at revenue survey No.11, North No.13, ward of Althan, T.P. Scheme No.28, Final Plot No.139, City Survey No.286 vill ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, stage at which the case is rested, and having heard the rival submissions, ultimately it was not necessary to go into and adjudicate the merits of the case of the parties, for, the petitioners have an alternative statutory remedy in form of preferring appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 5.1 Though the prayer is made to set aside the action of the Bank in declaring the account as Non Performing, essentially and for all purposes, the challenge is aimed at the steps taken by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act, in which process the stage reached is postsection 13, when the appeal before the Tribunal would lie. 5.2 The remedy of preferring appeal before the Tribunal is available to any person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ues but also envisage constitution of quasi judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. 5.4.1 Sounding caution, the Supreme Court observed further thus, ...despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and 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. It is hoped and trusted that in fut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
