(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M.
SAHAI)
1. We have heard learned advocate Mr.Arpit A.Kapadia for the petitioner, learned advocate Ms.Nalini S.Lodha for the respondent No.1-Bank and learned advocate Ms.Anushree Kapadia for the respondent No.2.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that though the property of the petitioner has been sold in public auction and the sale has also been confirmed but the possession is still with the petitioner and appeal filed by the petitioner is pending wherein interim order has been rejected.
3. The petitioner before us is a guarantor as well as mortgagor of the property. The mortgage has been found to be valid by Debts Recovery Tribunal by judgment dated 25.1.2010, and in pursuance thereof, the auction of the property has been held. It is well settled that when alternative remedy is pursued by the petitioner, such writ petition is not maintainable. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and others reported in 2010(2) D.R.T.C. 457 (S.C.) : 2010 (8) SCC 110, has held that the Debts Recovery Tribunal has been constituted to facilitate speedy recovery of dues of the bank and financial institutions.
4. In the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in para 27 it has been held that, when statutory remedies available under the Act, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution could not pass the orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues.
5. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merits in this petition and the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated.
(V.M.
SAHAI, J.) (A.J.DESAI, J.) syed/ Top