9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Recovery of loan amount by Debt Recovery Tribunal. 2. Allegation of cheating and lack of intention to mortgage property by petitioner. 3. Availability of statutory appeal remedy under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Ordinance, 2002. 4. Jurisdiction of civil court in civil disputes. 5. Scope of appellate authority's power. 6. Bypassing alternative statutory remedies in seeking judicial relief. Analysis: 1. The case involved the recovery of a loan amount by the Debt Recovery Tribunal against the defendants, jointly and severally, for a specified sum along with interest. The tribunal directed the recovery from hypothecated/mortgaged properties and restrained the defendants from selling or transferring these properties until the dues were settled. The petitioner challenged this order, alleging cheating and denying intention to mortgage her property. 2. The petitioner, an elderly individual, claimed to have been misled into standing as a guarantor without her knowledge or consent. However, the tribunal's evidence indicated delays and non-cooperation from both the petitioner and other respondents. The petitioner's argument of not being heard on merit was countered by the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Act. 3. The respondent bank argued that the petitioner had the option to appeal under Section 17(2) of the Act, which required a deposit of a percentage of the claimed amount. The court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking extraordinary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. The court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the jurisdiction of civil courts in civil disputes unless expressly barred by statute. It was noted that the civil court's jurisdiction should be retained unless specifically excluded, emphasizing the need to resolve civil disputes through the appropriate legal channels. 5. The scope of the appellate authority's power was discussed, emphasizing its wider reach compared to the High Court or Supreme Court. The authority was deemed capable of thoroughly examining and deciding on disputes, indicating that the appellate process should be utilized before seeking extraordinary relief. 6. The judgment emphasized the importance of not bypassing alternative statutory remedies, citing previous cases where the court upheld the need to exhaust statutory avenues before resorting to writ petitions. The court dismissed the writ petition due to the availability of the statutory appeal remedy, providing directions for the petitioner to pursue the appeal within a specified timeframe.
|
