Bathula Venkateswarlu vs Authorized Officer/Chief Manager
2024 Latest Caselaw 9276 AP

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 9276 AP
Judgement Date : 14 October, 2024

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Bathula Venkateswarlu vs Authorized Officer/Chief Manager on 14 October, 2024

      APHC010436642024        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA                     Bench Sr.No:-
                                                                                    4
                                        PRADESH
                                                                                 [3483]
                                      AT AMARAVATI

                              WRIT PETITION NO: 22706 of 2024

Bathula Venkateswarlu                                         ...Petitioner

      Vs.

Authorized Officer/Chief Manager and others                    ...Respondents

                                   **********

Advocate for the petitioner               : Sri K. Srinivas

Advocate for the respondents              : None



        CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR
                SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

        DATE        : 14th October 2024

PC:

Proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act)

were initiated against respondent No.2 - M/s. Siva Sai Granites & Exports,

who was the principal borrower with respondent No.1/Karnataka Bank Limited.

2. It appears, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that

interests, rights and liabilities of respondent No.2 were taken over by the

petitioner. It is also stated that respondent No.2 had discharged his liabilities

towards the bank and that the bank yet proceeded to initiate proceedings

under the SARFAESI Act against respondent No.2, which forced the petitioner

to file objections to the notices issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI

Act. Failure to consider the objections filed by the petitioner forced the

petitioner to approach this Court, which, by its order dated 02.05.2024 in

W.P.No.10341 of 2024, while disposing the petition, directed the respondents

to consider the same in accordance with law.

3. Case of the petitioner is that without considering the objections so filed,

the bank was proceeding to take over possession of the secured assets. It is,

therefore, prayed that having failed to consider the objections in accordance

with the directions so issued by this Court on 02.05.2024, the respondent

bank cannot be permitted to proceed further.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition is

not one seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondent

bank for non-compliance of the directions issued on 02.05.2024. In case the

petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondent bank in taking over

possession by the Bank, the petitioner could as well avail the alternate remedy

in terms of Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

5. Considering the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in

Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P.,1 whereby the Apex Court had

reiterated the principle that when an alternate remedy was available to a

person, the resort to extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not permitted unless

(2021) 6 SCC 771

the Court was satisfied that the case of the petitioner fell within any of the

exceptions which had been crystallized by the Apex Court as under:-

"27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where:

(a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged."

6. Reference in this regard can also be made to the case of United Bank

of India vs. Satyawati Tondon2 wherein the Apex Court held as under:-

"55. It is a 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."

7. In view of the fact that an efficacious alternate remedy is available to the

petitioner and the petitioner has been unable to bring the present case within

the exceptions carved out in Radha Krishan Industries's case, we deem it

appropriate that the petitioner resorts to avail the alternate remedy.

Considering the ratio of the judgments referred supra, we are not inclined to

entertain the present petition, which is disposed of with liberty to approach the

appropriate forum. No costs.

[(2010)8 SCC 110 : 2010 INSC 428]

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ

RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J

AMD