AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may kindly be pleased to set aside the E- Auction proceedings dated 24.12.2019, accept
and allow this writ petition and,
(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction quash and set aside the illegal E-auction dated 24.12.2019 and
(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction prohibit the respondent Bank to issue confirmation of sale certificate and restrain the respondent Bank to
carry out further auction of other mortgaged properties at under valued price; and
(iii) Any other appropriate relief may kindly be granted to the petitioners which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
(iv) Cost of the litigation may kindly be granted to the petitioner.
Admittedly, the petitioner is having an alternative remedy of appeal before the DRT against the action taken by the respondent- Bank under the
Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs. Mathew K.C, reported in (2018) 3 SCC
85, in para No.9 and 10 has held as under:-
Even prior to the SARFAESI Act, considering the alternate remedy available under the DRT Act it was held in Punjab National Bank V. O.C
Krishnan that: (SCC P570, Para6) ""6. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks
and the financial institutions. There is a hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Section 20 and this fast-track
procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil
suit, which is expressly barred. Even, though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the court under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution, nevertheless, when there is an alternative remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising its
jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High Court should not have entertained the petitioner under Article 227
of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act.
In Satyawati Tondon the High Court had restrained further proceedings under Section 13(4) of the Act. Upon a detailed consideration of the
statutory scheme under the SARFAESI Act, the availability of remedy to the aggrieved under Section 17 before the Tribunal and the Appellate
remedy under Section 18 before the Appellate Tribunal, the object and purpose of the legislation, it was observed that a writ petition ought not to be
entertained in view of the alternate statutory remedy available holding:(SCC pp.123&128, paras 43 & 55) ""43. Unfortunately, the High Court over
looked the settled law 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 person and that this Rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other type of public money and
the dues of banks and other financial institutions. IN our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenged to the action taken for recovery of
public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a
code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also an envisage constitution of quasi-
judicial body for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the 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.
It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Court continue to ignore the availability of statutory
remedies under the DRT Act and the 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. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their
discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.
In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands dismissed.