TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Bank's SARFAESI Act right upheld for debt recovery; no double jeopardy; emphasize statutory remedies before Article 226 relief. Petition dismissed.</h1> <h3>JASMINE KERSIBHAI BHAGWAGAR AND 2 Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND 4</h3> JASMINE KERSIBHAI BHAGWAGAR AND 2 Versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND 4 - TMI Issues:Challenge to SARFAESI Act notices under Article 226 of the Constitution.Analysis:The petitioners obtained a loan in 2007 and defaulted on payments, leading to the loan facility being recalled by the lender. An arbitrator was appointed, and an award was passed in favor of the lender. The lender assigned the debt to a bank, which initiated action under the SARFAESI Act to recover the outstanding amount. The petitioner argued that this action was impermissible due to the pending execution proceedings related to the arbitration award.The court held that the bank, as the assignee of the debt, had the right to proceed under the SARFAESI Act to recover the amount. It was determined that there was no duality of action or double jeopardy, as it was a single debt being sought for recovery. The court emphasized that the SARFAESI Act operates independently and is a valid recourse for recovery.Additionally, the court noted that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy available under Section 17 of the Act. Referring to relevant case law, including the Supreme Court's observations in various cases, the court highlighted the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court emphasized the need to adhere to the rule of availing alternative statutory remedies, especially in commercial matters.Consequently, the court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy before the Tribunal, where all contentions could be raised and evidence could be presented. The court clarified that it had not delved into the merits of the case and directed the petitioners to raise their contentions and prayers before the Tribunal in the Appeal process. The dismissal was based on the principle that when an alternative statutory remedy is available, the High Court would be reluctant to entertain a petition directly.
TaxTMI 