TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 888
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eposit (EMD). The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Agarwal Tracom Private Limited v. Punjab National Bank and Others (2018) 1 SCC 626. Aggrieved by the said decision, this appeal is preferred. 2. The principal issue raised in the appeal is whether the secured creditor had committed fraud by suppressing material information regarding the property in question at the time of sale. It is contended that the sale notice did not disclose that the property was subject to an order of attachment and that, had this fact been known to the appellant, the appellant might not have participated in the tender process. It is submitted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... xxxx The purpose of the attachment is solely for the purpose of protecting the attaching creditor's right to bring to sale in execution the right, title and interest in the attached property of the judgment-debtor and there is no reason for holding that it continued to affect the attached property in any way when the attached property no longer continues to be the property of the judgment-debtor. The auction purchaser takes the property free from attachment. The consequence no doubt to an earlier attaching creditor is very serious, but his rights are sufficiently safeguarded in such a situation by entitling him a ratable distribution of the proceeds of the sale. This is the only way left to a money-decree-holder when other like decree....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Shanmugavelu (2024) 6 SCC 641, Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and Others v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (2020) 19 SCC 681 and Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise v. Krishna Poduval 2005 (4) KLT 947 to contend that the appropriate remedy would be to prefer an appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal ('DRT', for short) and that the forfeiture of the earnest money in exercise of the power under Rule 9(5) is also approved by the said decisions. 5. It is submitted that, in any event, the appellant cannot now approach the Tribunal as the prescribed period of filing an application before the DRT has expired. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on a true and meaningful interpretati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....etailed terms and conditions of the sale, on the web-site of the secured creditor, which shall include- (a) the description of the immovable property to be sold, including the details of the encumbrances known to the secured creditor; (b) the secured debt for recovery of which the property is to be sold; (c) reserve price of the immovable secured assets below which the property may not be sold; (d) time and place of public auction or the time after which sale by any other mode shall be completed; (e) deposit of earnest money as may be stipulated by the secured creditor; (f) any other terms and conditions, which the authorized officer considers it necessary for a purchaser to know the nat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elief from constitutional courts. 13. The Bank has filed an affidavit stating that, till the date of the filing of the said affidavit, i.e. 29th July, 2026, the Bank was unable to find out whether the order of attachment was prior to the sale notice. However, during the course of hearing, the learned counsel has submitted, on instruction, that the order of attachment was subsisting at the time of issuance of the sale notice. 14. Insofar as the reliefs in the writ petition are concerned, we are of the view that the Tribunal is best suited to decide the issue, in view of the decisions in Agarwal Tracom Private Limited (supra) read with M.Rajendran v. KPK Oils (2026) 3 SCC 505 and Celir LLP v. Bafna Motors (Mumbai) Private Limited and Ot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the writ court as also the appellate court were justified in dismissing the appellant's writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative statutory remedy of filing an application under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act before the Tribunal concerned to challenge the action of PNB in forfeiting the appellant's deposit under Rule 9(5). We find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court. 34. The appellant is, accordingly, granted liberty to file an application before the Tribunal concerned (DRT) under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, which has jurisdiction to entertain such application within 45 days from the date ....