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, had taken action under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) to take possession of the secured asset. The petitioner approached the DRT under Section 17 of the Act, which was dismissed. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition. The core legal issue was whether an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is amenable to challenge under Section 17 of the Act. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the remedy under Section 17 is available against any action taken under Section 14, including an order under Section 14. The court relied on the principle that the SARFAESI Act provides a complete mechanism for redressal, and the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy. The court dismissed the writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the remedy under Section 17 before the DRT. The judgment was delivered by Justice Alok Aradhe on 30 January 2019.
Headnote
A) Banking Law - SARFAESI Act - Alternative Remedy - Section 14 and Section 17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - The issue was whether an order under Section 14 (assistance to secured creditor to take possession) is appealable under Section 17. The court held that the remedy under Section 17 is available against any action under Section 14, and the writ petition is not maintainable due to alternative remedy. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
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.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. It is held that against an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, an aggrieved person has the remedy under Section 17 of the Act. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy under Section 17 before the DRT.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Section 14 order
- Section 17 remedy
- SARFAESI Act
- 2002
- writ petition maintainability
