Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the notice under Section 13(2) and the subsequent SARFAESI measures was maintainable before the High Court, or whether the petitioner was required to pursue the statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Analysis: The notice under Section 13(2) only enables the borrower to make a representation or objection, and under Section 13(3A) the secured creditor is required to consider it and communicate reasons for non-acceptance. Such communication does not, by itself, give rise to a right to approach the Tribunal; that right arises when measures under Section 13(4) are taken. The Court noted that the petitioner had earlier been relegated to the statutory remedy in respect of similar challenges and that the remedy under the SARFAESI framework remained available. In view of the settled law and the existence of the alternative statutory remedy, the challenge before the High Court was premature and not maintainable.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and no interference was warranted; the petitioner was relegated to the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: A writ petition challenging action at the Section 13(2) stage under the SARFAESI Act is premature and ordinarily not maintainable when the statute provides an efficacious remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, which becomes available upon measures under Section 13(4).