ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S. RAJESWARAN, J.,]
The present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner as against the dismissal of SA. No. 269/2013 by the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai on 22.10.2013
2. Challenging the sale notice dated 31.08.2013 fixing the date of sale on 09.10.2013, the petitioner filed SA. No. 2269/2013 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-III, Chennai which came to be dismissed on 22.10.2013, after hearing both sides by the DRT-III, Chennai. As against the said dismissal order, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner/borrower.
3. Admittedly, as against the impugned dismissal order, there is an appeal remedy provided under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act before the Appellate Authority, viz., the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. By-passing the same, the petitioner has filed the above CRP and no reasons could be adduced for filing this petition before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex Court has, time and again reiterated that, whenever there is an alternative and effective remedy available, filing of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by-passing the provisions of the statutory law, more particularly, in SARFAESI proceedings, should not be entertained. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in UNITED BANK OF INDIA v. SATYAWATI TONDON reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 has held as follows:-
“45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but there can be no reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order, ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc., and that the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance.
………
55. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of Statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.”
4. In view of the above settled principle laid down by the Apex Court, we are of the considered view that this petition is too premature and the petitioner can very well raise all the grounds, raised before this Court, before the competent authority/Forum by filing appropriate appeal as provided under the Act.
5. However, an appeal u/s.18 of the Act as against the order of the DRT should be filed within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order copy of the DRT and in the instant case, the order of the DRT in SA. No. 2269/2013 came to be passed on 22.10.2013 and certainly the period of limitation would have expired already. The Hon'ble First Bench at the Madurai Bench of this Court in WP. [MD] No. 3167/2010 etc., batch, [B. SARAVANAN v. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER, SYNDICATE BANK, 105-106, PONNURANGAM ROAD [WEST], R.S PURAM, COIMBATORE] dated 21.11.2013 has held in paragraph 7 as follows:-
“…….
7. In view of the above, the aggrieved parties are permitted to move the appropriate Forum provided under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, within a period of eight weeks from today, failing whcih, it would be open to the respondent Banks concerned to proceed further, as per the relevant provisions of law, including the provisions contained in Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. If the aggrieved parties approach the appropriate forum in time, as specified in this order, the appropriate forum shall entertain such matters, on merits and in accordance with law and dispose of the same, without raising the issue of delay, in the filing of the matters. …….”
In view of the above said order of the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court, the petitioner is hereby directed to prefer an appeal u/s.18 of the SARFAESI Act before the Appellate Tribunal, viz., the DRAT, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the order passed by the DRT-III, Chennai, shall stand restored and it is open to the respondent/Bank to take action against the petitioner as per law.
6. With the above observation and direction, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
Comments