TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 307X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is trite that the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would be loath to entertain the petition straightway when aggrieved person has got an alternative statutory remedy. The remedy before the Tribunal is not only statutory remedy available, it is efficacious remedy where the parties can lead evidence in support of their case. All the contentions which are sought to be raised in this petition by the petitioners could well be raised and agitated in the Appeal before the Tribunal. The matter is under commercial realm. In such cases, rule of availment of alternative statutory remedy has to be adhered to steadfast. - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20209 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 5-12-2016 - MR. N.V.ANJARI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asking the petitioners to pay the sum of ₹ 08,20,82,444.62 Ps. These notices dated 03rd September, 2016 are also on the same lines, as is notice dated 03rd October, 2016. Notice dated 23rd November, 2016 is notice under Section 13(4) of the SERFAESI Act read with Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. It is a notice requiring the borrower/guarantor to pay the sum mentioned therein being ₹ 08,20,82,444.62 Ps. with interest running thereon within 30 days from the date of publication of notice, stating further that on failure of which Bank shall sell the properties under the provisions of the SERFAESI Act, 2002. These notices appear to be relating to different loan facilities for which different properties as described in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contemplated to sell the properties under Section 13(4) of the Act. 5. Section 17 of the Act reads as under. 17(1) Right to appeal: (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, [may take an application along with such fee, as may be prescribed] to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken. 5.1 In view of the remedy available, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition for the sole reason that petitioners have alternative statutory remedy available of preferring Appeal under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ure is, therefore, clear that while the banks and financial institutions have been vested with stringent powers for recovery of their dues, safeguards have also been provided for rectifying any error or wrongful use of such powers by vesting the DRT with authority after conducting an adjudication into the matter to declare any such action invalid and also to restore possession even though possession may have been made over to the transferee. 39. We are unable to agree with or accept the submissions made on behalf of the appellants that the DRT had no jurisdiction to interfere with the action taken by the secured creditor after the stage contemplated under Section 13(4) of the Act. On the other hand, the law is otherwise and it contemplat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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. 6.2.1 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 future ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
