Ramawatar Routh vs The Allahabad Bank & Anr.

“(i)

For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus direction to Respondents to exempt the petitioner from paying Housing loan amount of Rs. 14,39,627.15 charging up to 22.01.2023 which is totally illegal and unlawful because Respondent Bank has already auctioned the land cum house of the petitioner.

(ii)

For direction to Respondents to make calculation of Bank interest upon housing loan amount of Rs. Four Lacs incorrect and right manner considering this facts that the petitioner has already deposited Rs. 2,92,790.00 up to 26.07.2018.

(iii)

For direction to Respondents to return the excess amount after adjusting the loan amount after correct calculation to the petitioner from auction amount.

(iv)

For direction to Respondents to hand over the possession of the land cum house to the petitioner as he is ready to pay auction amount after adjusting his loan amount and house in question is in possession.”

“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.”