Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s.KSM Leather Exports, represented by its proprietor B.Noor Mohammed, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner sought to quash an order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Madurai, in NDN No.141/23 in S.A.SR.No.601 of 2023, and sought a consequential direction to the DRT to number the main Securitization Application and proceed in accordance with law. The first respondent was the Authorized Officer/Assistant General Manager of Canara Bank, Teynampet Branch, Chennai, and the second respondent was B.Nizar Ahamed. The court, after hearing both sides, observed that an effective alternative remedy lies before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). Consequently, the court held that invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not permissible. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies before the DRAT in accordance with law. No order as to costs was made, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court held that since an effective remedy lies before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not permissible. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate forum. (Paras 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against an order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal when an effective alternative remedy lies before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
- Debt Recovery Tribunal
- Securitization Application
- Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 319
W.P.(MD)No.737 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)No.481 of 2025
M.S.RAMESH, A.D.MARIA CLETE
For Petitioner: Mr.P.R.Prithiviraj; For Respondent No.1: Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran, Additional Government Pleader
M/s.KSM Leather Exports, Rep. by its Proprietor, B.Noor Mohammed
1.The Authorized Officer / Assistant General Manager, CANARA Bank, Teynampet Branch, Chennai; 2.B.Nizar Ahamed
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, refusing to number a Securitization Application.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the DRT order and direct the DRT to number the main Securitization Application and proceed in accordance with law.
Filing Reason
The DRT passed an order in NDN No.141/23 in S.A.SR.No.601 of 2023 dated 28.10.2024, which the petitioner challenged.
Previous Decisions
The Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, passed the impugned order on 28.10.2024.
Issues
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when an alternative remedy exists before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued for quashing of DRT order and direction to number the application.
Respondent argued that effective remedy lies before DRAT.
Ratio Decidendi
When an effective alternative remedy lies before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not permissible.
Judgment Excerpts
Since an effective remedy lies before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be permissible and hence, the Writ Petition stands dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies in accordance with law.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a Securitization Application before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Madurai, which was not numbered. The DRT passed an order in NDN No.141/23 in S.A.SR.No.601 of 2023 dated 28.10.2024. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on 09.01.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002:
