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>Borrowers' writ petition against SARFAESI Act recovery actions dismissed for not using DRT remedy first</h1> <h3>RAJESH AGRAWAL S/O BABULAL AGRAWAL, KRITEE AGRAWAL S/O RAJESH AGRAWAL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CUM CHIEF MANAGER IIFL HOME FINANCE LTD., NAYAB TEHSILDAR DEWAS (MADHYA PRADESH)</h3> RAJESH AGRAWAL S/O BABULAL AGRAWAL, KRITEE AGRAWAL S/O RAJESH AGRAWAL Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER CUM CHIEF MANAGER IIFL ... Issues:1. Jurisdiction of Additional District Magistrate under SARFAESI Act, 2002.2. Opportunity of hearing to borrowers under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002.3. Alternative remedy available to borrowers under SARFAESI Act, 2002.4. Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.Jurisdiction of Additional District Magistrate under SARFAESI Act, 2002:The petitioners filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 challenging an order by the Additional District Magistrate granting liberty to a non-banking finance company (NBFC) to proceed with recovery procedures under sections 14 and 14(1)(A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The petitioners argued that the NBFC invoked the Act without jurisdiction as the outstanding amount was below the threshold for SARFAESI actions. They sought quashing of the actions, claiming grave injustice. The High Court noted the lender's actions and the fear of losing possession of the property.Opportunity of hearing to borrowers under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act, 2002:The petitioners contended that the Additional Collector did not grant them a hearing before passing the order, and the borrowed amount was below the limit for SARFAESI actions. They argued that the actions of the NBFC were against the law and void. However, the Government Advocate cited a judgment stating that borrowers need not be heard by the Additional Collector under Section 14. The High Court acknowledged the absence of a DRT application by the borrowers.Alternative remedy available to borrowers under SARFAESI Act, 2002:The Government Advocate highlighted that the borrowers had the option to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) by filing an application, which they had not done. Citing previous judgments, it was emphasized that High Courts should refrain from entertaining matters where an alternative remedy exists. The High Court noted the availability of an efficacious remedy under Section 17 before the DRT.Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution:Referring to Supreme Court judgments, the High Court observed that the writ petition was not maintainable as settled legal principles dictated that High Courts should not entertain SARFAESI matters when an alternative remedy is available. Quoting previous cases, the court emphasized that the forum of the writ court should not be used for interim relief when other appropriate forums exist. The court dismissed the petition at the admission stage, following the principles laid down by the Apex Court.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition under Article 226, emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy before the DRT and following the principles established by the Supreme Court regarding the jurisdiction of the High Courts in SARFAESI matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
