9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ernative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2569 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2016 - MR.N.V.ANJARIA, J. FOR THE PETITONER : MR BIPIN I MEHTA, ADVOCATE, MR VICKY B MEHTA, ADVOCATE, MRUNAL J PATEL, ADVOCATE ORAL ORDER Heard learned advocate Mr. Mehta for the petitioners. 2. Petitioners have challenged demand notices dated 09.04.2015 and 02.02.2016 issued by the respondent Bank in the process of steps taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for recovery of its dues from the petitioners. It appears that on account of defaults committed by the petitioners in repaying the loan taken from the respondent Bank, S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 17 of the Act. In Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev vs. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 2 SCC 782], the Supreme Court has stated that the measures under Section 14 constitutes the action taken after the stage of Section 13(4) and a remedy of appeal under Section 17 would be available. In that case, refusal by the High Court to entertain. 5.1 In United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others [(2010) 8 SCC 11o], the Supreme Court observed thus, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, ces ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the Tribunal. The Tribunal has powers to pass interim as well as final order. It is therefore open to the petitioners to challenge notice dated 02.02.2016 by preferring appeal before the Tribunal. This Court is therefore not inclined to entertain this petition in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 6.1 Learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had made certain payment pursuant to the earlier notice, however there is no escape from the position that the petitioners have not paid up the dues of the Bank, therefore the Bank had initiated action and the notice impugned is continuation of the action already initiated. When the remedy in the form of appeal is available, it would be permissible for the petitioners to r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
