Summary Security Force Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Civil Offences Beyond Simple Hurt And Theft: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Vague Allegations Cannot Dissolve a Sacred Marital Relationship: Karnataka High Court Upholds Dismissal of Divorce Petition Daughters Entitled to Coparcenary Rights in Ancestral Property under Hindu Succession Act, 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Divorce | False Allegations of Domestic Violence and Paternity Questions Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court Fraud Must Be Specifically Pleaded and Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt to Invalidate Registered Documents: Andhra Pradesh High Court Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Rash Driving Conviction But Grants Probation to First-Time Offender Bus Driver Orissa High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband Convicted of Wife's Murder Merit Cannot Be Sacrificed for Procedural Technicalities in NEET UG Admissions: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Upholds Partition Decrees: Unregistered Partition Deed Inadmissible, Fails to Prove Prior Partition - Joint Hindu Family Property Presumed Undivided: Patna High Court Section 195(1)(b) CrPC | Judicial Integrity Cannot Be Undermined: Supreme Court Restores Evidence Tampering Case In a NDPS Case Readiness and Willingness, Not Time, Decide Equity in Sale Agreements: Supreme Court Denies Specific Performance Prolonged Detention Violates Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Money Laundering Case DV ACT | Economic Abuse Includes Alienation of Assets, Necessitating Protection Orders: Allahabad High Court Illegal Structures to Face Demolition: Bombay HC Directs Strict Action Against Unauthorized Constructions Justice Must Extend to the Last Person Behind Bars: Supreme Court Pushes for Full Implementation of BNSS Section 479 to Relieve Undertrial Prisoners Efficiency Over Central Oversight: Supreme Court Asserts Need for Localized SIT in Chennai Case Partition, Not Injunction, Is Remedy for Joint Property Disputes: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Subsequent Purchaser Can Question Plaintiff’s Intent: MP High Court Clarifies Specific Relief Act Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court

High Courts Should Refrain From Intervening in SARFAESI Matters Unless Exceptional Circumstances Exist: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Kasturi Devi Sheetalaya Pvt. Ltd., challenging an order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The bench, led by Justice Ajit Kumar, emphasized the necessity of exhausting alternative statutory remedies provided under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest (SARFAESI) Act, 2002, before seeking judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioners, Kasturi Devi Sheetalaya Pvt. Ltd. And another, had filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging an interlocutory order passed by the DRT on a miscellaneous application concerning court fees related to a Securitization Application. The respondent, represented by Bank of India, raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the petitioners had an alternative remedy available under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to appeal to the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT).

The court reiterated that the SARFAESI Act, 2002, provides a specific remedy for aggrieved parties to appeal to the DRAT against orders of the DRT. “The High Court should refrain from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 when effective alternative remedies are available under special statutes,” the bench noted, referencing the Supreme Court’s judgment in PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Bank.

The court discussed the limited scope for invoking Article 226 of the Constitution in matters where statutory remedies are provided. “The Supreme Court has consistently held that High Courts should exercise discretion with greater caution, care, and circumspection when statutory remedies are available under special acts such as the SARFAESI Act and the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993,” the court stated, citing United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon.

The judgment emphasized that the order passed by the DRT on a miscellaneous application regarding court fees is an interlocutory order and is appealable under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The court clarified that Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act provides the DRT with the authority to entertain various applications, including those related to procedural matters like court fees. Therefore, any order, whether final or interlocutory, falls within the ambit of Section 17 and is appealable.

Justice Ajit Kumar remarked, “The High Courts should refrain from entertaining petitions under Article 226 in cases where effective statutory remedies are available unless the case falls within the exceptional circumstances outlined by the Supreme Court.”

The Allahabad High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition underscores the judiciary’s commitment to adhering to statutory remedies prescribed under special laws like the SARFAESI Act. By upholding the principle of exhausting alternative remedies, the judgment reinforces the structured legal framework for addressing disputes in financial and securitization matters. This decision is expected to guide future cases, emphasizing the importance of following the prescribed statutory procedures before seeking judicial intervention.

 

Date of Decision: May 28, 2024

Kasturi Devi Sheetalaya Pvt. Ltd. And Another v. The Presiding Officer Debt Recovery Tribunal and Another

 

Similar News