9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sufficient justification to have declined interference. This Court is of the view that the petitioner could be granted liberty to file an appeal against the order, within a stipulated time - appeal disposed off. - W.P.No.22685 of 2017 And W.M.P.No.23783 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 30-7-2019 - Mr. Justice M.S. Ramesh For the Petitioner : Mr. J. Shankarraman For the Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, SSC for R1, Mr.V.Sundareswaran, SSC for R2 ORDER The grounds raised in the present writ petition may not fall under any of the exemptions provided for directly invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the appeal remedy available under Section 35(B) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. *** 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 Actand exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Ikbal (supra), it was observed that the action of the Bank under Section 13(4) of the ''SARFAESI Act' available to challenge by the aggrieved under Section 17 was an efficacious remedy and the institution directly under Article 226 was not sustainable, relying upon Satyawati Tandon (Supra), observing : 27. No doubt an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 but by now it is well settled that where a statute provides efficacious and adequate remedy, the High Court will do well in not entertaining a petition under Article 226. On misplaced considerations, statutory procedures cannot be allowed to be circumvented. *** ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant law. In financial matters grant of ex 6 parte interim orders can have a deleterious effect and it is not sufficient to say that the aggrieved has the remedy to move for vacating the interim order. Loans by financial institutions are granted from public money generated at the tax payers expense. Such loan does not become the property of the person taking the loan, but retains its character of public money given in a fiduciary capacity as entrustment by the public. Timely repayment also ensures liquidity to facilitate loan to another in need, by circulation of the money and cannot be permitted to be blocked by frivolous litigation by those who can afford the luxury of the same. The caution required, as ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant to contest the maintainability of the writ petition and failure to notice the subsequent developments in the interregnum. The opinion of the Division Bench that the counter affidavit having subsequently been filed, stay/modification could be sought of the interim order cannot be considered sufficient justification to have declined interference. 18. We cannot help but disapprove the approach of the High Court for reasons already noticed in Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. vs. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd. and Another, 1997 (6) SCC 450, observing :- 32. When a position, in law, is well settled as a result of judicial pronouncement of this Court, it would amount to judicial impropriety to say ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
