THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.13666 of 2023
ORDER: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Mr. Anirudh Sadhu, learned counsel appears for
Ms. V. Mythili, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the
validity of the order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Khammam, in exercise of powers under
Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 (for short, "the SARFAESI Act").
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at
length.
4. Admittedly, against the aforesaid order an appeal lies
under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act in view of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bajarang
Shyamsunder Agarwal vs. Central Bank of India and
another 1.
1
(2019) 9 SCC 94
CJ & NVSK, J
2 W.P.No.13666 of 2023
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in United Bank of India v.
Satyawati Tondon 2 has deprecated the practice of the High
Courts in entertaining the writ petitions despite availability of
an alternative remedy. The aforesaid view has also been
reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Varimadugu Obi
Reddy v. B.Sreenivasulu 3. The relevant portion of para 36
reads as under:
"36. In the instant case, although the respondent
borrowers initially approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, but the order of the Tribunal indeed was appealable under Section 18 of the Act subject to the compliance of condition of pre-deposit and without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal, the respondent borrowers approached the High Court by filing the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution. We deprecate such practice of entertaining the writ application by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy available under the law. This circuitous route appears to have been adopted to avoid the condition of pre- deposit contemplated under 2nd proviso to Section 18 of the 2002 Act"
2 (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 110 3 (2023) 2 Supreme Court Cases 168 CJ & NVSK, J 3 W.P.No.13666 of 2023
6. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
7. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ________________________ N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J th 6 SEPTEMBER, 2023.
Note: issue certified copy today.
kvni