Dismissed

Sri. D. Ramesh v. Union Bank of India

Telangana HC15 Sept 2023WP/25830/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court declined to entertain a writ petition challenging possession proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, citing Supreme Court precedents that prohibit bypassing the alternative statutory remedy available under Section 17.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without costs; liberty reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Sri. D. Ramesh Vs Union Bank of India — Banking and Recovery | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

13377 |

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

¶6

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 25830 OF 2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sri. D. Ramesh, S/o llaiah, Aged about 57 Years, Occ. Business, Rlo 4-1-298, Subhash Nagar, Reddy Colony, Opp. S.T.Joseph Church, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Union Bank of lndia, Nayeem Nagar Branch, Warangal, Represented by lts Authorized Officer.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition under Ad.icle 226 of the Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass order or orders direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order direction to set aside the proceedings initiated by the respondent bank in trying to take physical possession of the properties, in pursuance of the warrant in Crl MP No 18 of 2023 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumakonda, in^pursuance of the Possession notice datel 15.12.2022, Uls 14 of the SARFAESI Act, is without following the^procedure contemplated under the Act as illegal, null and void without following due^process of law, and consequently direct Debts Recovery Tribunal^- l, Hyderabad to dispose the case SA No. 1'l 1 of 2023 on merits.

¶15

¶16

lA NO:1 OF 2023

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstitnces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including taking physical possession of the properties through advocate commissioner, in pursuance of the warrant in Crl IVp No 18 of 2023 on the file of the Honorable Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hanumakonda, U/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, including taking physi:al possession of the property.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. HAMSA DURGA PONNAM Counsel for the Respondent: -- The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

-7

¶20

THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTIC E ALOK ARADHE

¶21

AND

¶22

THE HON'BLE sRI JUSTICE N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

¶23

{

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.25830 of2023

¶25

ORDER.' fer the Hon'bte the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe)

¶26

Ms. P.Hamsa Durga, learned counsel for the petitioner

¶27

Heard on the question of admission

¶28

ll. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 23.O3.2023 passed ln Crl.M.P.No.18 of 2023 by Chief Judicial Magistrare, Hanumakonda

¶29

Admittedly, against the aforesaid order an appeal lies under Section 1.7 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2OO2 (briefly referred to hereinafter as "the SARFAESI Act") in view of the judgment of the Hon,ble

¶30

¶31

l-==re

¶32

v Supreme Court in Bajarang Shyamsunder Agar:wal Central Bank of India and anotherl

¶33

{

¶34

l{on'bie Supreme Court in United Bank of India v Satyawati Tondon2 has deprecated the practice of the High Courts in entertaining the writ petition s despite availability of an alternative remedy. The aforesaid view has also been reiterated by Honble Supreme Court in Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B.Sreenivasulu3. The relevant extract of para 36 reads as under:

¶35

"36. In the instalt case, although thc respondent borrowers initially approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by ltling an application undcr Section 17 of the SARFAESI AcL, 2002, but the order of the Tribunal indeed was appealable under Section 18 of the Act subject to the compliance o[ condition of pre-dcposit artd without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal, the respondent borrowers approached the High Court by filing the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution. We deprecate such practice of entertaining the writ application by the High Court in exercise of^jurisdiction under

¶36

t (2019) 9 SCC 94

¶37

2 (2O tol 8 SCC 110 3 l2o23l 2 SCC 168

¶38

';f

¶39

¶40

Article 226 of the Constitution without cxhausting the alternative statutory remedy available under the law. This circuitous route appears to have been adopted to avoid the condition of pre-deposit contemplated under 2"0 proviso to Section 1g of the 2OO2 Acr,,

¶41

¶42

In view of aforesaid enunciation of law b1. Hon,bie Supreme Court, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, iiberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAtrSI Act.

¶43