Telangana High Court
Mr. Shaik Mahommed Ahmed, Hyd vs Authorised Officer, Lic Housing ... on 21 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.28204 of 2010
ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
None for the parties.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the
validity of the order dated 14.10.2010 in Crl.M.P.No.3143
of 2010 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Hyderabad, under Section 14 of the Securitization and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as, "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 Supreme Court in Bajarang
Shyamsunder Agarwal v. Central Bank of India 1.
1 (2019) 9 SCC 94
4. The 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 Supreme Court in Varimadugu
Obi Reddy v. B.Sreenivasulu 3. The relevant extract 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
2 (2010) 8 SCC 110
3 (2023) 2 SCC 168
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."
5. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law by the
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. A Bench of this Court, while entertaining the writ
petition, had granted an interim order.
7. In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that for a period
of four weeks, the interim order granted earlier by a Bench
of this Court in this writ petition shall continue and in case
the petitioner avails the remedy under Section 17 of the
SARFAESI Act within the aforesaid period of four weeks
from today, he shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 14
of the Limitation Act, 1963.
8. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition is
disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________
ALOK ARADHE, CJ
______________________________________
J.SREENIVAS RAO, J
21.08.2024
vs
