9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy of appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. The Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, [2013 (8) TMI 458 - SUPREME COURT], considered the question of entertaining writ petition where alternative statutory remedy was available, where it was held that Writ Court ought not to have entertained the Writ Petition filed by the assessee, wherein he has only questioned the correctness or otherwise of the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, the re-assessment orders passed and the consequential demand notices issued thereon. The writ petition is dismissed being not maintainable. - CWP-28994-2018 - - - Dated:- 16-11-2018 - MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, JJ. For The Petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short the SARFAESI Act ) for outstanding liability amounting to ₹ 33,48,096/-. Further, the respondent had issued a notice dated 12.6.2018 (Annexure P-5) directing the petitioner to handover the vacant possession of the mortgaged property. As per account statement (Annexure P-6), the petitioner had already paid the loan amount to the respondent. The petitioner challenged the notices (Annexures P-4 and P-5, respectively) before the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ) by filing SA-93-2018. The Tribunal vide order dated 4.7.2018 directed the petitioner to submit a proposal along with cal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut challenging the order, Annexure P-8. It was under such circumstances that no order favourable to the petitioner can be passed. Further, against the order of the Tribunal there is a remedy of appeal under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act. 5. The Apex Court in Commissioner of Income Tax and others vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, (2013) 357 ITR 357 , considered the question of entertaining writ petition where alternative statutory remedy was available. After examining the relevant case law on the point, it was recorded as under:- 14. In the instant case, the only question which arises for our consideration and decision is whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the order passed by the assessing authority under Section 148 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Tribunal, Kotah, AIR 1955 SC 425; Union of India vs. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882; State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86 and K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 1089 have held that though Article 226 confers a very wide powers in the matter of issuing writs on the High Court, the remedy of writ absolutely discretionary in character. If the High Court is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been adopted. (See ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up. 13. In Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 this Court observed: (SCC pp. 440-41, para 11) 11. It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 32-is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the Act cannot bar and curtail these remedies. It is, however, equally obvious that while exercising the power under Article 226/Article 32, the Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment. (See: G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman Raman Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 192; CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd., (1985) 1 SCC 260; Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura, (1999) 1 SCC 472; Shivgonda Anna Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 3 SCC 5; C.A. Abraham v. ITO, (1961) 2 SCR 765; Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433; H.B. Gandhi v. Gopi N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
