M/S Aditya Furniture Udyog & Ors. vs The Union Bank of India & Ors.

That this writ application is being filed for issuance of appropriate writ/writs and order/orders in the nature of certiorari for quashing the notice dated 10.08.2023 issued under the signature of Authorized Officer, Union Bank of India published in daily Hindi Newspaper 'Prabhat Khabar' by which the Authorized Officer has given notice to e-auction of the immovable property of petitioners which are six in number under Section 8(6)/9(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Rule Act, 2002 (herein after referred as SARFAESI Act) without taking any objection from the petitioners as well as without considering the facts that the petitioners are ready to re-pay the demand of Rs. 51,01,499 in installment which is given by bank to the petitioners. The Respondent Bank may further be directed to get the C.C. Account of the petitioners renewed which is due since 2022. The notice is totally arbitrary and issued by violation and of Rule 3 and 3A of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rule, 2002 and fit to be set aside; further for issuance of appropriate writ/writs in the nature of mandamus for directing and commanding the Respondents to consider the objection/representation of the petitioners and after taking the demand, not to disturb the peaceful possession of the petitioners over immovable property and further for any other appropriate relief or reliefs for which petitioners are entitled in the facts and circumstances of this case.

The High Court overlooked 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 types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. While dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the 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 envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies 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.

97.

This court has time and again, reminded the high courts that they should not entertain petition under article 226 of the constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.