Statutory remedy under the Securitisation Act bars writ jurisdiction where Tribunal review is available.

A writ petition challenging cancellation of a private treaty arrangement under the Securitisation Act was held not maintainable because the dispute arose from proceedings under Sections 13 and 14 and the Act provides a statutory appellate mechanism before the DRT and, further, the Appellate Tribunal. The Court held that where the Tribunal has jurisdiction to address the grievance, extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised. The petitioner was therefore relegated to the statutory remedy, while the issue of refund of the amount paid to the Commercial Tax Department was left open to be raised before the appropriate forum.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the Bank's communication cancelling the private treaty arrangement was maintainable in view of the statutory remedy under the securitisation , and whether the petitioner should be relegated to the remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal.

Analysis: The action complained of arose out of proceedings under Section 13 read with Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, and the dispute was connected with a private treaty entered into under Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002. The Court held that the Act provides a statutory appeal under Section 17 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and a further appeal under Section 18 before the Appellate Tribunal. In such circumstances, disputes arising out of those proceedings ought to be pursued in the statutory forum, and the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised where the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The question relating to refund of the amount paid to the Commercial Tax Department was left open to be raised before the appropriate forum.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory remedy under Sections 17 and 18 of the Act.

---