TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 562
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the mortgaged property in favour of the petitioner. It is also prayed to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to take back the possession of the property. 3. The statement of facts would be in brief. The petitioner claims to be the original owner of the property described as Bunglow No.15, Shukan Palace1, Survey No. 705, Khata No.258, Final Plot No.58, Town Planning Scheme No.41, Sola. The property was mortgaged by the petitioner for securing loan of Rs. 90 lacs from the respondent Bank. The Bank initiated the proceedings to recover the amount under the SARFAESI Act and notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued on 18.01.2014. It appears that a sale deed was executed in fovour of the third party in April 2004. Thereafte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecumall the contentions which a party may urge. The petitioner would have opportunity to urge all the contentions which are sought to be urged in this petition. 5.1 In Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev vs. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 2 SCC 782], the Supreme Court has stated that the measures under Section 14 constitutes the action taken after the stage of Section 13(4) and a remedy of appeal under Section 17 would be available. In that case, refusal by the High Court to entertain the writ petition was held to be fully justified. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner relied on in vain decision of the Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank vs. Noble Kumar and ors. [(2013) 9 SCC 620] to contend that the possession is not taken in tune with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ures 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." 7.1 Sounding caution, the Supreme Court observed further thus, "...despite repeated pronouncement 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....