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 recovery citation was maintainable when the petitioner had already invoked the statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
Analysis: The petitioner had admittedly availed a loan, defaulted in repayment, and the account was classified as a non-performing asset. The secured creditor proceeded under the SARFAESI Act, and the petitioner had already been directed in earlier proceedings to approach the statutory authority. As the petitioner had already filed an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the impugned recovery citation was a matter that could be examined there, and the writ court found no reason to intervene in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the statutory remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal and was dismissed in limine.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner was left to pursue the remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, and the High Court declined to interfere in the recovery proceedings under writ jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory remedy is already available and has been invoked, writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised to challenge recovery action arising from SARFAESI proceedings.