Writ petition challenging a bank's notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. Court held no reason to interfere as writ petitioner is protected under the Act, granting liberty to approach appropriate forum.
Granted liberty to apply before the appropriate forum for redress.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR
WRIT PETITION No.32836 of 2012
BETWEEN
Majeti Lakshmi Narasamma.
…PETITIONER
AND
The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Visakhapatnam and two others.
…RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. G.V.S MEHAR KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondents: MR. SURYA PRAKASH RAO
The Court made the following:
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose, the Acting Chief Justice)
In this writ petition, the action taken by the respondent bank by issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, has been challenged by the writ petitioner.
2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in UNITED BANK OF INDIA v.
[1] SATYAWATI TANDON has expressed opinion that the High Court should not interfere in the matters connecting to the Debts Recovery Tribunal Act and SARFAESI Act and must be cautious in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for passing orders, which have serious impact on the right of the banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues and accordingly, requested the High Courts to exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection. Paras 53 and 54, relevant thereof,
are extracted hereunder:
“53. In Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. [(2010) 4 SCC 772] the Court was dealing with the issue whether the alternative statutory remedy available under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 can be bypassed and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could be invoked. After examining the scheme of the Act, the Court observed:
31. When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance and that too in a fiscal statute, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. In this case the High Court is a statutory forum of appeal on a question of law. That should not be abdicated and given a go-by by a litigant for invoking the forum of judicial review of the High Court under writ jurisdiction. The High Court, with great respect, fell into a manifest error by not appreciating this aspect of the matter. It has however dismissed the writ petition on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
32. No reason could be assigned by the appellant's counsel to demonstrate why the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 35 of FEMA does not provide an efficacious remedy. In fact there could hardly be any reason since the High Court itself is the appellate forum.
54. In Modern Industries v. SAIL (2010) 5 SCC 44 the Court held that where the remedy was available under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 the High Court was not justified in entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
3. In view of that, we do not find that there is any reason to interfere in the matter, at this stage, as the writ petitioner is amply protected under the Act, in question, except granting liberty to the petitioner to apply before appropriate
forum for redress.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. As a sequel to the disposal of the writ petition, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ
_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 8, 2012 DSK
[1] (2010) 8 SCC 110
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in the matter of a bank issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act when alternative statutory remedies exist.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
United Bank of India v. Satyawati TandonReferred¶18
UNITED BANK OF INDIA v. SATYAWATI TANDON
Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Anr.Referred¶21
Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and Anr. [(2010) 4 SCC 772] · Who else cites this
Modern Industries v. SAILReferred¶21
Modern Industries v. SAIL (2010) 5 SCC 44 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Majeti Lakshmi Narasamma
The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Visakhapatnam and two others
Pinaki Chandra Ghose
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
