Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Chandrashekar H.S., filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent bank, Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Ltd., to consider his representation dated 17.02.2020 for one-time settlement and to set aside the sale certificate dated 05.03.2020 issued in favor of the second respondent, D.T. Prakash. The petitioner had availed a loan from the bank, and upon default, the bank initiated proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner had already filed two applications under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), numbered SA.No.115/2020 and SA.No.97/2018 (the latter relating to a possession notice). The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, which he had already availed. The court, after hearing the parties, held that since the petitioner had already invoked the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT, the writ petition was not maintainable. The court dismissed the petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies before the DRT. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability - Petitioner availed remedy under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 before DRT and simultaneously filed writ petition - Held that writ petition is not maintainable when alternative statutory remedy is available and has been availed (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable when the petitioner has already availed the alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. It is open to the petitioner to pursue his remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. No opinion on merits.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Writ jurisdiction
- Section 17 of SARFAESI Act
- 2002
- Maintainability of writ petition
Case Details
2020 LawText (KAR) (07) 194
Writ Petition No.6805/2020 (GM - RES)
Sri.K.Sreedhar (for petitioner), Smt.R.Radha for M/s.R.R.Assts. (for R1), Sri.M.B.Gagan Ganapathy (for R2)
Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Ltd. and D.T. Prakash
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus and setting aside of sale certificate in a SARFAESI matter.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought direction to the first respondent bank to consider his representation for one-time settlement and to set aside the sale certificate issued in favor of the second respondent.
Filing Reason
Petitioner had availed a loan from the bank, defaulted, and the bank issued a sale certificate after proceedings under SARFAESI Act. Petitioner sought relief from the High Court.
Previous Decisions
Petitioner had already filed SA.No.115/2020 under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and also SA.No.97/2018 relating to possession notice.
Issues
Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has already availed the alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Submissions/Arguments
Respondents submitted that the petitioner has availed remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT and simultaneously filed this writ petition, hence not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable when the petitioner has already availed the alternative statutory remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Judgment Excerpts
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has availed remedy under Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 which was numbered as SA.No.115/2020 and also SA.No.97/2018 (matter relates to possession notice) in Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Simultaneously, one day before the filing of SA.No.115/2020, the petitioner has presented this petition.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed writ petition on or around 04.03.2020 (one day before filing SA.No.115/2020). Respondents appeared and raised objection regarding maintainability. Court heard and dismissed the petition on 03.07.2020.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002: Section 17
