2013 (3) TMI 761 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Condonation of delay in filing appeal, availability of alternative remedy under SARFAESI Act, exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The judgment deals with an application for condonation of delay in filing an appeal, which was heard for admission. The delay was condoned without unnecessary issuance of notice to the respondent, and the application was allowed exparte.

Regarding the availability of an alternative remedy under the SARFAESI Act, the Writ Appeal was preferred from the order of a learned Single Judge, who dismissed the writ petition on the ground of the availability of an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.

The Court noted that after the dismissal of the application made under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the remedy for approaching the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18 was available. The High Court was not required to entertain the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in such a situation.

The appellant argued that the Single Judge should have considered the factual and legal grounds raised in the petition, rather than dismissing it solely on the ground of an alternative remedy. However, the Court referred to precedents emphasizing that the power of the High Court under Article 226 should be exercised to dispense justice and not to find fault without advancing the cause of justice.

The appellant also relied on a judgment stating that despite the existence of an alternative remedy, a writ court may exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in certain cases, such as when there is a violation of natural justice or a question regarding the vires of an Act.

Another judgment highlighted by the appellant emphasized the factors that a Court must consider while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, including the presence of disputed facts, availability of alternative remedies, delay, limitation laws, and public policy considerations.

The Court found that in a similar case where disputed facts existed and an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal was available, the High Court was justified in declining to exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Despite the arguments made by the appellant, the Court noted the clear legal position established by the Apex Court and emphasized that justice should prevail over technicalities of law. The appeal was dismissed, and it was clarified that no time limit extension could be granted for filing the appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.