Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Orissa High Court

Ahalya Lenka And vs Regional Manager on 20 January, 2025

Bench: S.K. Sahoo, Chittaranjan Dash

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                          W.P.(C) No.32904 of 2024

            Ahalya Lenka and
                                           .....     Petitioners
            another
                                                   Mr. B.K. Mohanty,
                                                   Advocate
                                     -versus-

            Regional Manager,
            Bank of Baroda,
            Cuttack and others             .....   Opp. Parties

                                                   Mr. S.K. Burma,
                                                   Advocate
                                     CORAM:
                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH

                                      ORDER

Order No.                            20.01.2025

  02.              This     matter    is      taken   up   through       Hybrid

arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

Heard.

The petitioners have filed this writ petition to quash Annexure-5 & 6 and to direct the opp. parties to issue fresh notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 enabling the petitioner to liquidate their loan amount complying 13(3) of the Act.

Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. -Vrs.- Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr. reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 320 has deprecated the interference of the High Courts in matters pertaining to the SARFAESI Act, where efficacious alternative remedy has been prescribed in the statute itself. The Hon'ble Court went on to hold as follows:

"16. Approaching the High Court for the consideration of an offer by the borrower is also frowned upon by this Court. A writ of mandamus is a prerogative writ. In the absence of any legal right, the Court cannot exercise the said power. More circumspection is required in a financial transaction, particularly when one of the parties would not come within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. When a statute prescribes a particular mode, an attempt to circumvent shall not be encouraged by a writ court. A litigant cannot avoid the non- compliance of approaching the Tribunal which requires the prescription of fees and use the constitutional remedy as an alternative."

In view of the settled position of law as held hereinabove so also in the case of Hemraj Ratnakar Salian -Vrs.- HDFC Bank Ltd. & Ors. Reported in Page 2 of 3 (2021) 20 Supreme Court Cases 395 and Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev & Ors. -Vrs.- State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2011) 2 Supreme Court Cases 782, since alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioners, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, we grant liberty to the petitioners to approach the DRT by filing an appeal. If such an appeal is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Rajesh Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRAMOD KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Page 3 of 3 Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 21-Jan-2025 18:51:45