TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 61
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....16th November, 2016 issued to the petitioners by respondent No.1 Bank pursuant to proceedings initiated under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. 2.1 The prayer is made to set aside the notices produced collectively at Annexure-A issued by the District Magistrate. What is further prayed is to quash the proceedings before the District Magistrate pending in the nature of Case No.17 of 2016 being proceedings under Section 14 of the SERFAESI Act. 3. A prelude of relevant facts may be necessary to have the total factual picture. Around the years 2004-05, the respondent Bank appears to have sanctioned financial facility and credit limit in favour of the peti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntly owned by petitioner Nos.2 to 5 and mortgaged with the Bank as stated above. Agreement to Sell came to be executed on 24th December, 2012 in favour of one M/s.Yogamrut Developers who later on defaulted in the payment of installment of the sale price. As the dues of the Bank were seen in jeopardy, the sanction limit of the credit facility to the petitioner No.1 firm-M/s.Rainbow Exports was revisited with and was reduced. It appears that the overdue portion which was Rs. 512.00 lakhs of the limit was converted into working capital term loan. 3.4 The Bank appears to have permitted the petitioner No.1 firm to bring the funds by attempting sale of the property again, however the buyer of the property again defaulted and failed to abide by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey visited the Bank and addressed letters and also addressed letter dated 15th March, 2016 through advocate. It is sought to be stated by the petitioners that the Bank wrongly treated the communications as objections under Section 13(3A) of the Act to reject the objections. Again the correspondence was entered into by petitioner. Petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.4 also engaged themselves into correspondence and inspection of the documents. 3.7 This long drawn exercise which could be successfully attempted by the petitioners post-13(2) notice, finally failed when the Bank took symbolic possession of the mortgaged properties on 03rd June, 2016 through the authorised officer. The notices regarding possession was published in two newspapers....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2016, and preferred Civil Application for vacating the interim direction; (v) it is stated that learned Single Judge has directed the Bank to furnish the statement of accounts; (vi) the petitioners have intimated the Bank on 24th October, 2016 about the order. 4. The petitioners have filed the present petition when the notice was received by the District Magistrate in Section 14 proceedings initiated by the Bank. The petitioner complained that they were directed to remain present for hearing by issuing summons by the Magistrate. 5. The aforesaid conspectus of facts is highlighted only for the purpose as it vividly demonstrates as to how the petition is thoroughly misconceived and premature. The whole set of the contentions sought to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute." 5.2.1 Soun....