S.Noornisha vs Authorized Officer And Others

M.Duraiswamy, J

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of certiorari to call for records relating to the impugned auction sale notice, dated 05.12.2019, issued by the first respondent and to quash the same.

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition without exhausting the alternative remedy available to her under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, "the SARFAESI Act").

The Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of The Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs. Mathew K.C., reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85 and Agarwal Tracom Private Limited Vs. Punjab National Bank and others, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 626 has held that the aggrieved parties cannot challenge the SARFAESI proceedings directly by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the appeal remedy available to them.

In a recent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in ICICI Bank Limited v. Umakanta Mohapatra, reported in 2018 SCC Online SC 2349, the Apex Court has referred to the decision in the case of Mathew K.C., referred supra, and observed that despite several judgments, including the decision in the case of Mathew K.C., referred supra, the High Courts continue to entertain matters, which arise under the SARFAESI Act and keep granting interim orders in favour of persons, who are Non-Performing Assets. Further, the Honourable Supreme Court has held that the writ petition filed by the aggrieved party, without exhausting the statutory remedy available under the SARFAESI Act and Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, is not maintainable.

In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition and it is open to the petitioner to challenge the sale notice dated 05.12.2019, issued by the respondent - Bank, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, in accordance with law.