AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Manohar, J.—The Petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order dated 22-12-2008 passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal at Bangalore in I.R. No. 459/2008 and also sought for a declaration declaring the entire sale proceedings as null and void.
It is the case of the Petitioner that he has availed loan of Rs. 8,78,535/- from the first Respondent-Bank and when he had failed to repay the said loan amount, the Bank issued notice for payment of the said amount u/s 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (''the Act'' for short). For non-payment of the said amount, possession notice u/s 13(4) of the Act has been issued. Being aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner preferred an appeal u/s 17 of the Act in ASA 122/2006 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the said appeal on 8-9-2006. The officers of the Bank proceeded with the recovery of the loan amount by initiating recovery proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, Mangalore for taking physical possession of the property and auctioning the same. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order for taking possession of the property on 25-9-2006. In the meanwhile, the tenant who is in occupation of the said property approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal in an appeal No. ASA 344/2006. The said appeal was also dismissed by the Tribunal on 2-8-2007. After dismissal of the said appeal by the tenant, the Bank issued a paper publication in 14-8-2007 for auctioning the schedule property. Being aggrieved by the paper publication, the Petitioner once again approached the Tribunal in I.R. No. 830/2007 challenging the auction notice.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that though the Debts Recovery Tribunal passed an interim on 27-8-2007, the Bank has auctioned the said property on 30-8-2007. However, the said appeal was also dismissed by the Tribunal. Thereafter, the Respondents have taken possess ion of the said property. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner filed an appeal in LR. NO. 459/2009 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. The Tribunal by its order dated 22-12-2008 dismissed the appeal with exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has preferred this writ petition contending that the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal is contrary to law.
Sri. S.N. Bhat, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent-Bank contended that against the order at Annexure-A, the Petitioner has got an alternative remedy u/s 18 of the Act and without exhausting the said remedy, the Petitioner has approached this Court. Sri. Bhat further submits that the Petitioner has approached the Tribunal thrice challenging the action of the Respondent-Bank. Though the Tribunal has granted an interim order, he has not complied with any of the interim orders. Hence, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the same.
I have carefully gone through the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order impugned in the writ petition.
The Debts Recover Tribunal dismissed I.R. No. 459/2008 in which the Petitioner has challenged the action of the Respondent in taking possession of the property. However, the Petitioner has got remedy u/s 18 of the Act against the action of the Respondent Section 18 of the Act reads as under:
Section 18: Appeal to Appellate Tribunal:
(1) Any person aggrieved, by any order made by the Debts Recovery Tribunal to the Appellate Tribunal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order of Debts Recovery Tribunal:
Provided that different fees may be prescribed for filing an appeal by the borrower or by the person other than the borrower:
Provided Further that no appeal shall be entertained unless the borrower has deposited with the Appellate Tribunal fifty percent of the amount of debt due from hint, as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, whichever is less:
Provided Also that the Appellate Tribunal may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, reduce the amount to not less than twenty-five per cent of debt referred to in the second proviso.
(2) Save as otherwise provided in this Act the Appellate Tribunal shall, as far as may be, dispose of the appeal in accordance with the provisions of the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 and Rules made thereunder.
Reading of Section 18 of the Act makes it very clear that any person aggrieved by the order of the Debts Recovery Tribunal has to approach the Appellate Tribunal. Without exhausting the said remedy, he cannot approach this Court seeking for an interim order or the main relief.
The Hon''ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others, has laid down a law that the High Court should not interfere in the matter of recovery of dues to the Financial Institutions. Admittedly, the Petitioner has got statutory remedy under the Act and he has to exhaust that remedy. Hence, the writ petition itself is not maintainable.
If the Petitioner prefers an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within one month from today, the Tribunal without insisting upon the period of limitation, shall consider the matter on merits and pass orders in accordance with law, since the Petitioner has been prosecuting the writ petition before this Court.
With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.