9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 13798/2024, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed on the ground that the appellants/petitioners has got the statutory remedy available to them by way of invoking Section 18 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act') and filing an appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'DRAT'). 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has submitted that for filing an appeal, the appellants/petitioners will be required to make certain deposit in terms of the requirement of the second proviso mandated under Section 18 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated the practice of entertaining the writ petitions in such matters. Regarding this aspect, we may have a reference to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank and others, (2024) 6 SCC 579, wherein it has clearly been held that the High Court would ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person. Paragraphs 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 of the said judgment are reproduced herein below: "23. It could thus be seen that, this Court has clearly held that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 SCC 85 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 41 : 2018 INSC 71], this Court was considering an appeal against an interim order passed by the High Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution staying further proceedings at the stage of Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. After considering various judgments rendered by this Court, the Court observed thus : (SCC p. 94, para 16) "16. The writ petition ought not to have been entertained and the interim order granted for the mere asking without assigning special reasons, and that too without even granting opportunity to the appellant to contest the maintainability of the writ petition and failure to notice the subsequent developments in the interregnum. The opinion of the Division Bench that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
