2016 (2) TMI 816

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Heard learned advocate Mr. Mehta for the petitioners. 2. Petitioners have challenged demand notices dated 09.04.2015 and 02.02.2016 issued by the respondent Bank in the process of steps taken under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 for recovery of its dues from the petitioners. It appears that on account of defaults commi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs that they deposited certain amount towards the due amount. It was submitted that the Bank at one point of time did not proceed but once again, the Bank has taken out action against the petitioners by issuing impugned notice dated 02.02.2016. 5. Section 17 of the Act provides for appeal by the aggrieved person including borrower before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. In Authorised Officer, India....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Supreme Court observed thus, "the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and othe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. It is hoped and trusted that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matt....