Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  
 
   
ALREADY A MEMBER ?
Username
Password

Translate

This Page To:

 
MADHAVI LATA V/S THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, UNION BANK OF INDIA, CHENNAI, decided on Friday, September 8, 2017.
[ In the High Court of Madras, Writ Petition No. 24207 of 2017. ] 08/09/2017
Judge(s) : HONOUABLE S. MANIKUMAR & V. BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Advocate(s) : K.S. Natarajan.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page






#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw









    (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court Allikulam Chennai relating to the order dated 10/7/2017 in Crl.M.P.No.688 of 2017 and quash the same.)S. Manikumar J.1. Challenge in this writ petition is to an order made in Crl.M.P.No. 688 of 2017 dated 10/7/2017 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-District Collector Chennai directing appointment of Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the schedule property mentioned in an application filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act 2002 with the assistance of the Station House Officer E-3 Teynampet Police Station Chennai and to handover possession of the Bank.2. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has further directed the Advocate Commissioner to file an undertaking affidavit before the said Court to perform the duty of execution of warrant without any deviation and if there is any deviation on his part he would be liable for action under the law.3. Mortgagor has challenged the above said order on the grounds inter alia that there are procedural irregularities and that no notice has been given and therefore there is violation of principles of natural justice.4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.5. As per Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act 2004 the District Magistrate and District Collector has to satisfy the contents of the affidavit filed by the Bank and pass suitable orders for the purpose of taking possession of the secured assets.6. As per Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act 2002 any person (including borrower) being aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-Section 4 of Section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer Chapter No.III (may make an application along with such fee as may be prescribed) to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty five days from the date on which such measures had been taken.7. As per Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 in case the borrower fails to discharge his liability in full within the period specified in Sub-Section 2 the secured creditor may take recourse to one or more of the following measures to recover his secured debt namely –a. take possession of the secured assets of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease assignment or sale for realising the secured asset;b. take over the management of the business of the borrower including the right to transfer by way of lease assignment or sale for realising the secured asset:Provided that the right to transfer by way of lease assignment or sale shall be exercised only where the substantial part of the business of the borrower is held as security for the debt:Provided further that where the management of whole of the business or part of the business is severable the secured creditor shall take over the management of such business of the borrower which is relatable to the security for the debt.c. appoint any person (hereafter referred to as the manager) to manage the secured assets the possession of which has been taken over by the secured creditor;d. require at any time by notice in writing any person who has acquired any of the secured assets from the borrower and from whom any money is due or may become due to the borrower to pay the secured creditor so much of the money as is sufficient to pay the secured debt.”8. Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act 2002 for taking possession of the secured assets of the borrower in our considered opinion is certainly one of the measures envisaged in Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act 2002 and if any person including the borrower is aggrieved over the same an application under Section 17 (1) would lie before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Thus there is an alternative remedy provided under the statute.9. Repeatedly the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that when there is an efficacious and alternate remedy under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act or Securitisation And Reconstructions of Financial Assets Act 2002 as the case may be a writ petition is not maintainable. We deem it fit to consider the following decisions.(i) In Precision Fastenings v. State Bank of Mysore reported in 2010(2) LW 86 this Court held as follows:This Court has repeatedly held in a number of decisions right from the decision in Division Electronics Ltd. v. Indian Bank (DB) Markandey Katju C.J. (2005 (3) C.T.C. 513) that the remedy of the aggrieved party as against the notice issued under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act is to approach the appropriate Tribunal and the writ petition is not maintainable. The same position has been succinctly stated by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Transcore v. Union Of India (2006 (5) C.T.C. 753) in paragraph No. 26 wherein the Supreme Court has held as under:—“The Tribunal under the DRT Act is also the Tribunal under the NPA Act. Under Section 19 of the DRT Act read with Rule 7 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1993 (1993 Rules) the applicant bank or FI has to pay fees for filing such application to DRT under the DRT Act and similarly a borrower aggrieved by an action under Section 13(4) of NPA Act was entitled to prefer an Application to the DRT under Section 17 of NPA.” (Emphasis added) (ii) In Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon reported in 2010 (5) LW 193 (SC) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:16. The facts of the present case show that even after receipt of notices under Section 13(2) and (4) and order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not bother to pay the outstanding dues. Only a paltry amount of Rs. 50 000/- was paid by respondent No. 1 on 29.10.2007. She did give an undertaking to pay the balance amount in installments but did not honour her commitment. Therefore the action taken by the appellant for recovery of its dues by issuing notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) and by filing an application under Section 14 cannot be faulted on any legally permissible ground and in our view the Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error by entertaining the writ petition of respondent No. 1.17. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If respondent No. 1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14 then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1). The expression ‘any person’ used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold not only the borrower but also guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective. Unfortunately 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 cess fees other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive 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 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.18. While expressing the aforesaid view we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority including in appropriate cases any Government directions orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but at the same time we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application appeal revision etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for re-dressal of his grievance. It must be remembered that stay of an action initiated by the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities for recovery of taxes cess fees etc. seriously impedes execution of projects of public importance and disables them from discharging their constitutional and legal obligations towards the citizens. In cases relating to recovery of the dues of banks financial institutions and secured creditors stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of such bodies/institutions which ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation. Therefore the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters. Of course if the petitioner is able to show that its case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad AIR 1969 SC 556 Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1=1999-2-L.W. 200 and Harbanslal Sahnia and another v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others (2003) 2 SCC 107 and some other judgments then the High Court may after considering all the relevant parameters and public interest pass appropriate interim order.27. 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 SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution care and circumspection.28. Insofar as this case is concerned we are convinced that the High Court was not at all justified in injuncting the appellant from taking action in furtherance of notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Act.29. In the result the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Since the respondent has not appeared to contest the appeal the costs are made easy.(iii) In Saraspathy Sundararaj v. Authorised Officer and Assistant General Manager State Bank of India reported in (2010) 5 LW 560 the Court held as follows:The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the possession notice dated 16.09.2004 issued by the respondent under the SARFAESI Act and consequently direct the respondent to effect the settlement in accordance with the SBI OTS-SME 2010 Scheme as contained in its letter dated 18.03.2010 and unconditionally restore physical possession of the six rooms taken physical possession by it at No. 29 Sarojini Street T. Nagar Chennai – 17 with such damages...... When a specific forum has been created which enables the borrower to challenge the action of the financial institution by filing necessary petition under Section 17 the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. What could not be achieved by the petitioner by filing a petition before the appropriate Forum which is at present barred by period of limitation could not be permitted to be achieved by extending the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. Above all since the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the loan by transferring the property in favour of her son this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition.10. In the light of the decisions and discussion we are of the view that the instant writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly the same is dismissed. It is always open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds including procedural lapse if any before the Tribunal. No costs. Consequently the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.