AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble B.S. Verma, J.
(Stay Application No. 2903 of 2012)
Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:-
To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/notice dated 22-2-2012 (Annexure-5) issued by respondent no. 2-Bank.
To issue such other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper.
To award cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.
A perusal of the record shows that the proceedings u/s 13(2) and 13(4) of the Act have already been drawn against the petitioner and the respondent Bank has already taken possession of the mortgaged property of the petitioner on 25-11-2011, as is evident from the impugned notice (Annexure No. 5).
An alternate remedy of statutory appeal u/s 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal is available to the petitioner.
A Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Alpana Shankar Vs. Union Bank of India and another reported in 2005 (1) U.D. 692, has observed in paragraph no. 6 as under:-
Admittedly, the petitioner was given notice u/s 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. If the petitioner failed to discharge the liabilities within sixty days, the respondent Bank is entitled to take recourse to one or more of the measures mentioned u/s 13(4) of the said Act to recover the secured debt. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any such action taken by the Bank u/s 13(4) of the Act, the petitioner has a right of appeal to the Debt Recovery Tribunal u/s 17 of the said Act. From the averments made in the writ petition, it is not clear whether the respondents have taken any action u/s 13(4) of the Act. If any such action has already been taken or as and when such action is taken, the petitioner can approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal u/s 17 of the Act for redressal of her grievance. For this reason also, this Court cannot interfere in the matter in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Unless there are extreme and compelling circumstances, the High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the party has got an effective alternate remedy available under the Statute. The petitioner has not made out any such extreme and compelling circumstance to persuade this Court to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
An effective alternate remedy of filing statutory appeal u/s 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal is available to the petitioner. Hence I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. However, the petitioner may approach appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievance. All pending applications stand disposed of.