Allahabad High Court
Bank Of Maharashtra,Head Office,Pune ... vs Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lko. And 8 ... on 3 May, 2024
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:35147
Court No. - 7
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2220 of 2024
Petitioner :- Bank Of Maharashtra,Head Office,Pune Thru. Its Attorney Dhirendra Kumar
Respondent :- Debts Recovery Tribunal, Lko. And 8 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Dwivedi
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Praveen Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. By means of present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner - Bank of Maharashtra assailing the order dated 03.04.2024, passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Lucknow in Securitisation Application No. 767 of 2022 - M/s Chef Cuisine Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs. Bank of Maharashtra and Others.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that securitisation application was preferred by the private respondent nos. 2 to 7 assailing the action of the petitioner in proceeding to recover the debt therein by selling the secured assets of respondent nos. 2 to 7. In the said proceedings the petitioner had moved objections stating that applicants therein had not approached with clean hands inasmuch as the mortgaged property has been illegally and arbitrarily sold by them. In the aforesaid circumstances, after considering the entire conspectus of the case, the Debt Recovery Tribunal by means of impugned judgment and order dated 03.04.2024 has allowed the securitisation application preferred by the private respondents against which present petition has been filed.
4. Query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the fact that he had efficacious alternate remedy against the impugned order before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal and that the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that jurisdictional error has been committed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal inasmuch as objections preferred by the petitioner have not been decided and the fact that the respondents have not come with clean hands and has also disposed of the secured assets, which issues have been ignored by the Debt Recovery Tribunal while allowing the securitisation application of the private respondents and therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, writ proceedings would be maintainable rather then dismissing the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy.
6. Considering the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of impugned order, it is evident from para 15 and 16 of the said order that the Debt Recovery Tribunal was fully conscious of the fact that the applicants therein have sold out the mortgaged property and thereafter proceeded to pass the impugned order.
7. In view of above, on the ground that petitioner has efficacious alternate remedy of filing appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal which is duly competent to consider and decide the issues raised by the petitioner in the appeal before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
8. In the light of above, this Court does not find any ground for interference in the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, accordingly the petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of efficacious alternate remedy.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the petitioner has approached this Court considering the fact that there is urgency in the matter.
10. Accordingly, it is provided that in case appeal is filed by the petitioner before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal within next three weeks, same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 3.5.2024
A. Verma
(Alok Mathur, J.)
