TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 365
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d being at Rajpur, Taluka Kadi, District Mehsana bearing Survey No.1444 of Mouje Rajpur of Kadi Taluka in the registration district Mehsana and sub-district Kadi admeasuring about 5,160 Sq. Meters, (2) piece and parcel of freehold land lying and being at Rajpur, Taluka Kadi, District Mehsana bearing Survey No.1445 paiki of Mouje Rajpur of Kadi Taluka in the registration district Mehsana and subdistrict Kadi admeasuring about 11,473 Sq. Meters and (3) piece and parcel of freehold land situate, lying and being at Rajpur, Taluka Kadi, District Mehsana bearing Survey No.1434 paiki 1/paiki 2 of Mouje Rajpur of Kadi Taluka in the registration district Mehsana and sub-district Kadi admeasuring about 15,852 Sq. Meters, in furtherance of the notice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... IOB Consortium, the company brought funds from respondent IFCI Limited. The total funds borrowed from IOB Consortium is mentioned to be Rs. 1043.792 crores, whereas funds obtained from respondent No.1 by the petitioner group, as stated in the petition, is Rs. 100 crores. Default in repayment resulted into action in law by the respondents as above and by issuing notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, amount of Rs. 110,90,07,605.45 Ps. was demanded by the respondents. The stage steps have traveled farther to the step of Section 13(4) because of non-payment by the petitioners. 5. In Kanaiyalal Lanchand Sachdrv Vs State of Maharashtra [(2011) 2 SCC 782], the Supreme Court in paragraphs 21 and 22 observed as under. "21. In Indian Ove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansferee. 39. We are unable to agree with or accept the submissions made on behalf of the appellants that the DRT had no jurisdiction to interfere with the action taken by the secured creditor after the stage contemplated under Section 13(4) of the Act. On the other hand, the law is otherwise and it contemplates that the action taken by a secured creditor in terms of Section 13(4) is open to scrutiny and cannot only be set aside but even the status quo ante can be restored by the DRT." 22.We are in respectful agreement with the above enunciation of law on the point. It is manifest that an action under Section 14 of the Act constitutes an action taken after the stage of Section 13(4), and therefore, the same would fall within the ambit of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Trade Marks, Mumbai [AIR 1999 SC 22], (ii) Ram and Shyam Company Vs State of Haryana [(1985) 3 SCC 267] and (iii) M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corporation Vs Jahan Khan [AIR 2007 SC 3153]. 7.1 Proceeding to deal with the aforesaid decisions, in Whirlpool Corporation (supra), the Supreme Court held that in the circumstances such as the notice being without jurisdiction or where the authority has usurped the jurisdiction, the discretion to entertain a writ petition could be exercised. In this case, respondent No.1 has competently invoked provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and the notices and action thereunder cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. It is different aspect, to be agitated before the alternative forum, that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oney 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." 9.1 Sounding caution, t....