Verma Jewellers vs The Central Bank of India

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel appearing for the respondents Bank on the point of maintainability of the case.

According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, this application has been filed against the notice issued u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, though right to appeal against the measures taken under Sub-section (4) of Section 13 is there under the Act and, therefore, when statutory remedy is there, this Court should not entertain this writ application.

In view of the submissions, one needs to take notice of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, which reads as follows: -

Right to Appeal- (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter,[ may make an application alongwith such fee, as may be prescribed,] to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measures had been taken.

(2) to (7)..........

From perusal of the provision, it does appear that any person aggrieved by any of the measures taken under Sub-section (4) of Section 13 by the secured creditor may file appeal. Instead of filing appeal u/s 17 of the Act, this writ application has been filed.

I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others, , wherein Their Lordships have shown their concern about the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being entertained by the High Court. Their Lordships have observed as follows:-

It is matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts 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.

Under the circumstances, I am not inclined to exercise extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Hence, this application is dismissed.