Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/S Balaji Food Processing Industry, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, challenging an order dated 27.01.2015 passed by the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), Bangalore, in Crl.Misc.No.8876/2014. The impugned order was passed under Section 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act), which facilitates the taking of possession of secured assets by a secured creditor. The petitioner raised several contentions on the merits of the order, opposing the action of the first respondent, Bank of Maharashtra. The first respondent filed a detailed objection statement opposing the petitioner's contentions. The Court, however, did not delve into the merits of the case. Instead, it noted that Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act provides an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) against any action taken under Section 14. The Court observed that the DRT had already disposed of the petitioner's application under Section 17, and the petitioner had not challenged that order. Consequently, the Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable in light of the alternative remedy available. The Court dismissed the petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy before the DRT if so advised. The Court also clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Maintainability - SARFAESI Act, 2002, Sections 14, 17 - The petitioner challenged an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227. The Court held that since an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 17 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal is available, the writ petition is not maintainable. The Court dismissed the petition with liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is maintainable against an order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, when an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the Act is available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable in view of the alternative remedy available under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal if so advised. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Maintainability of writ petition
- Section 14 SARFAESI Act
- Section 17 SARFAESI Act
- Debts Recovery Tribunal
