Seepalli Hanumamma vs The State Of Telangana
2023 Latest Caselaw 2558 Tel

        THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                           AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

                      WRIT PETITION No.25970 of 2023

ORDER: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)


          Mr. Bandi Sai Vamshi, learned counsel appears for

the petitioner.


2.        In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the

validity of the order dated 10.07.2023 passed by the Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Karimnagar, 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.        Admittedly, against the aforesaid order, a statutory

remedy 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.25970 of 2023




4.        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."

(2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 110

(2023) 2 Supreme Court Cases 168 CJ & NVSK, J

5. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law by Hon'ble

Supreme Court, 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.

6. With the aforesaid liberty, the 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 20 SEPTEMBER, 2023.

kvni