Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Suresh Kumar, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondent, Punjab National Bank (Authorised Officer and Chief Manager), to deliver vacant physical possession of the schedule property. The petitioner had participated in an auction conducted by the bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), and the sale was confirmed in his favor. However, the bank delivered only symbolic possession of the property, leading the petitioner to approach the High Court for vacant physical possession. The petitioner also sought, in the alternative, interest at 12% per annum on the 25% deposit made by him from the date of payment till realisation. The respondent bank opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The Court, after hearing both sides, held that the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The Court observed that under the SARFAESI Act, the bank's obligation is to deliver symbolic possession, and any grievance regarding vacant possession must be raised before the DRT. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, granting the petitioner liberty to approach the DRT under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the bank to deliver vacant physical possession of the auctioned property. The Court held that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. (Paras 1-5) B) Banking Law - SARFAESI Act - Possession After Auction - Section 13(4) and Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - The bank, after confirming the sale in favor of the petitioner, delivered only symbolic possession. The Court held that under the SARFAESI Act, the bank's obligation is to deliver symbolic possession, and any grievance regarding vacant possession must be raised before the DRT under Section 17. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can direct the bank to deliver vacant physical possession of the auctioned property to the petitioner, or whether the petitioner's remedy lies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act).
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is granted liberty to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for appropriate relief.
Law Points
- Writ of mandamus not maintainable when alternative remedy available under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act
- 2002
- Bank's obligation under SARFAESI Act is to deliver symbolic possession
- not vacant physical possession
- Petitioner's remedy lies before Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act
