Phanideep Addanki vs The Union Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 1204 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1204 Tel
Judgement Date : 20 March, 2024

Telangana High Court

Phanideep Addanki vs The Union Of India on 20 March, 2024

         THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                         AND
        THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI



                 WRIT PETITION No.7287 of 2024

ORDER:

(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

Mr. M.Adam, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the

validity of the notice dated 06.03.2024 issued under Rule

8(6) and Rule 9(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement)

Rules, 2002.

3. Admittedly, against the aforesaid order, a statutory

remedy lies under Section 17 of the Securitisation and

Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of

Security Interest Act, 2002 (briefly referred to hereinafter

as "the SARFAESI Act") in view of the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Bajarang Shyamsunder Agarwal v.

Central Bank of India and another 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 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 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.