Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sri Jayaram Hegde, filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court challenging a possession notice issued by Canara Bank under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act). The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellant had an alternate remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act by approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). Aggrieved, the appellant filed an intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act read with Rule 27 of the Writ Proceedings Rules. The Division Bench, consisting of Justice Vineet Saran and Justice Aravind Kumar, heard the appeal. The appellant argued that the writ petition should be entertained despite the alternate remedy. However, the court held that the availability of an efficacious alternate remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT barred the maintainability of the writ petition. The court noted that the learned Single Judge had correctly dismissed the petition on this ground. Consequently, the writ appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to avail the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the DRT. The court did not express any opinion on the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Banking Law - SARFAESI Act - Alternate Remedy - Maintainability of Writ Petition - Section 17 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - The appellant challenged a possession notice issued by the bank under the SARFAESI Act by filing a writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground of availability of alternate remedy under Section 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Division Bench upheld the dismissal, holding that the writ petition was not maintainable as the appellant had an efficacious alternate remedy. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act is maintainable when an alternate remedy under Section 17 of the Act is available before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Final Decision
The writ appeal is dismissed. The appellant is directed to avail the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. No opinion on merits.
Law Points
- Alternate remedy
- Maintainability of writ petition
- SARFAESI Act
- Section 17 remedy
- Debt Recovery Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (06) 22
Vineet Saran, Aravind Kumar
Sri Nataraja Ballal A. for appellant, Sri A. Anand Shetty for C/R-5, Sri V. Haridas Bhat for R-1 to R-4
Authorized Officer cum Chief Manager, Canara Bank & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Intra-court appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging possession notice under SARFAESI Act.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the order dated 17.07.2014 in W.P.51774/2012 and to allow the writ petition.
Filing Reason
Appellant challenged the possession notice issued by Canara Bank under SARFAESI Act.
Previous Decisions
Learned Single Judge dismissed W.P.51774/2012 on 17.07.2014 on ground of availability of alternate remedy under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act before Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Issues
Whether the writ petition challenging a possession notice under SARFAESI Act is maintainable when an alternate remedy under Section 17 of the Act is available before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that the writ petition should be entertained despite the alternate remedy.
Respondents supported the Single Judge's order dismissing the petition for alternate remedy.
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition challenging a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act is not maintainable when an efficacious alternate remedy under Section 17 of the Act is available before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
Judgment Excerpts
This is an intra court appeal filed by the writ petitioner-appellant against the Judgment and order dated 17.07.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.51774/2012 whereby the petition has been dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy of approaching the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.
We do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is dismissed.
Procedural History
The appellant filed W.P.51774/2012 before the Karnataka High Court challenging a possession notice under SARFAESI Act. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 17.07.2014 on the ground of alternate remedy under Section 17 of SARFAESI Act. The appellant then filed this intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act read with Rule 27 of the Writ Proceedings Rules.
Acts & Sections
- Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002: Section 17
- Karnataka High Court Act: Section 4
- Writ Proceedings Rules: Rule 27
