Telangana High Court
Sri Tirumala Cloth Store vs Union Of India on 16 July, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION No.19238 of 2024
ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)
Dr. C.S.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the
petitioners.
Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor
General of India for the respondent No.1.
Mr. V.Murali Manohar, learned counsel representing
Ms. V.Dyumani, learned counsel for the respondents
No.2 and 3.
2. Office is directed to register the writ petition.
3. Heard on the question of admission.
4. In this petition, the petitioners have assailed the
validity of the notice dated 01.07.2024 passed in the
proceedings under Section 14 of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002 (briefly referred to hereinafter
as "the SARFAESI Act").
5. 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.
6. 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 the 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
1 (2019) 9 SCC 94
2 (2010) 8 SCC 110
3 (2023) 2 SCC 168
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"
7. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the
petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy of
challenging the impugned order in a proceeding under
Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, this Court is
not inclined to interfere in the matter.
8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners have submitted One Time
Settlement (OTS) proposal to the bank.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent bank submits
that in case such OTS proposal is pending, the bank shall
consider it in accordance with law.
10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the
liberty to the respondent bank to consider the OTS
proposal submitted by the petitioners, if so advised. The
petitioners are also granted the liberty to approach the
Debts Recovery Tribunal with regard to their grievance to
the notice dated 01.07.2024 issued under Section 14 of the
SARFAESI Act.
11. Accordingly, 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
______________________________________
ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J
16.07.2024
vs
