Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Vimala Bhushan, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Bangalore in S.A. No. 254/2017 dated 12.02.2018. The petitioner claimed to have contributed from her savings and invested in the property in question. The respondent No.1, Yes Bank Limited, through its Authorised Officer, had taken action under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The core legal issue was whether an order passed under Section 14 of the Act can be challenged under Section 17 of the Act. The petitioner argued that the remedy under Section 17 was not available. The court, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in 'M/s. Agarwal Tracom India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Punjab National Bank and Others', (2017) 4 SCC 653, held that an aggrieved person has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Act against an order under Section 14. The court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable, granting the petitioner liberty to avail the remedy under Section 17 of the Act.
Headnote
A) Banking Law - SARFAESI Act - Alternative Remedy - Section 14 order - Section 17 remedy - The issue was whether an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act can be challenged under Section 17. The court held that an aggrieved person has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Act against an order passed under Section 14. The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable without exhausting the statutory remedy. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an order passed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 is amenable to remedy under Section 17 of the Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Section 14 order
- Section 17 remedy
- SARFAESI Act
- writ petition maintainability
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (01) 2
Writ Petition No.6594 of 2018 (GM-DRT)
H.S.Dwarakanath for Prasanna Kumar R S (petitioner), V.Suresh and Amit Deshpande (respondent No.1)
The Authorised Officer, Yes Bank Limited and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the impugned order dated 12.02.2018 in S.A. No.254/2017 passed by the DRT, Bangalore.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed to have contributed from her savings and invested in the property in question, and challenged the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.
Previous Decisions
The DRT, Bangalore passed an order in S.A. No.254/2017 on 12.02.2018, which was challenged in the writ petition.
Issues
Whether an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act can be challenged under Section 17 of the Act.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that remedy under Section 17 is not available against an order under Section 14.
Respondent No.1 contended that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17.
Ratio Decidendi
An order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is amenable to remedy under Section 17 of the Act. An aggrieved person has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17, and a writ petition without exhausting that remedy is not maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The issue which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether against an order passed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, an aggrieved person has the remedy under Section 17 of the Act.
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Agarwal Tracom India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, (2017) 4 SCC 653, the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Act against an order passed under Section 14 of the Act.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the DRT, Bangalore in S.A. No.254/2017. The writ petition was admitted for hearing and finally heard with consent of parties.
Acts & Sections
- Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002: 14, 17
- Constitution of India: 226, 227
