The Madras High Court had observed that when the alternate remedy was available i.e. in this case the petitioner can approach to Debt Recovery Tribunal which he didn’t approached, the petitioner was entitled to use that remedy rather than approaching to this Court.
“In the present case, since there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner, the writ petition is not entertained.”
The above observation had made by the Division- bench of Madras High Court, comprising of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy while dealing with the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the 2nd respondent from taking coercive steps to bring the petitioner/ guarantors properties for e-auction till the 1st respondent sanctioning the capital subsidy/ loan waiver scheme to be disbursed to the petitioner Unit as per G.O.Ms.No.74 Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (D-2) Department, dated 24.11.2020.
Court Judgment
The Court held that It is elementary that the Writ Court would, ordinarily, not receive a grievance of the present kind, particularly since it involves disputed questions of fact, contested accounts and the like, which cannot be conveniently addressed on affidavit evidence in summary proceedings.
In any event, once a secured creditor takes steps under Section 13(4) of the Act of 2002, any person aggrieved thereby is entitled to approach the appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the said Act. In the present case, since there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner, the writ petition is not entertained.
The Bench dismissed the petition and by leaving the writ petitioner free to pursue the usual remedy available to it. The Court also made it explicitly clear that the petitioner’s application for subsidy may be considered by the appropriate authorities in accordance with law, without being influenced by this order.
Case Details
Case: W.P.No.3803 of 2021
Petitioner: Sri Balaji Stretch Cling Films
Respondent: The Principal Secretary to Government & Ors
Counsel for the Petitioner – Mr.C.Prakasam
Counsel for the Respondent - Mr.K.S.Suresh
Quorum: Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
