Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11235 of 2021 Petitioner :- M/S Sbam Carpet Export House And Another Respondent :- Authorized Officer/ Chief Manager Union Bank Of India Counsel for Petitioner :- Dwarika Prasad Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Agrawal
Hon'ble Sanjay Yadav,Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Matter is taken up through video conferencing.
Shri Dwarika Prasad Shukla, learned counsel appears for the petitioner.
Shri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel appears for the Respondent Bank.
The petitioner by way present petition seeks direction to the Respondent no.1-Authorised Officer/Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Aurai Branch, Tehsil Aurai, District Bhadohi to take decision upon the representation dated 01.02.2021. The another relief which the petitioner seeks is the direction to the Respondent no.1 not to take coercive measure for realization of the balance amount of the dues from the petitioners till the correct outstanding amount have not been decided and communicated to the petitioners by the respondent Bank, after adjustment of the amount as paid and stated in the application dated 11.01.2021.
Apparent it is from the document filed by the petitioner that the petitioner is a borrower and that the accounts of the petitioner bearing number 303607220000061, 303609030000027, 303609020000067 and 303601010160035 have been classified as NPA account on 31.08.2019 pursuant to his default in making repayment of dues/installment/interest. As on 30.09.2019, a sum of Rs. 43,55,892.16 is outstanding. On the said account, proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 23.10.2019 under the provision of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
As the petitioner has already been subjected to proceeding under Section 13 of the Act of 2002, we are not inclined to cause any indulgence on a representation given by the petitioner during the pendency of such proceeding. In case the petitioner has any grievance in respect of initiation of proceedings under Section 13 of the Act of 2002, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse under Section 17 of the Act of 2002, as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others, (2010) 8 SCC 110 wherein their "42. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If Respondent 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 the 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 pas 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.
43. 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 a 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, 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."
In view whereof and since we are not inclined to cause any indulgence in the matter, petition fails and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.4.2021 Kirti
(Prakash Padia, J) (Sanjay Yadav, ACJ)