Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Abdul Rahuman, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash a possession notice dated 26.11.2024 issued by the second respondent, TATA Capital Housing Finance Ltd., through its Authorized Officer/Branch Manager. The possession notice was issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The petitioner contended that the notice was arbitrary and illegal. The court, comprising Justice M.S.Ramesh and Justice A.D.Maria Clete, observed that an effective remedy lies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. Relying on the principle that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked when an alternative statutory remedy is available, the court dismissed the writ petition. However, the court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue remedies before the DRT in accordance with law. The court also closed the connected miscellaneous petitions and made no order as to costs. The judgment was delivered on 09.01.2025.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Availability of effective remedy before Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Petitioner challenged possession notice dated 26.11.2024 issued by TATA Capital Housing Finance Ltd. under SARFAESI Act - Court held that invoking Article 226 is not permissible when an effective alternative remedy exists - Writ petition dismissed with liberty to approach DRT (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable to challenge a possession notice issued under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) when an alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is available.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies before the Debts Recovery Tribunal in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Writ jurisdiction
- SARFAESI Act
- Possession notice
- Debts Recovery Tribunal
