Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt.Shraddha Dashore vs Tata Capital Husing Finance Limited ... on 26 September, 2025
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49340
1 MP-4678-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 26 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
MISC. PETITION No. 4678 of 2025
SMT.SHRADDHA DASHORE AND OTHERS
Versus
TATA CAPITAL HUSING FINANCE LIMITED REGISTERED OFFICE AND
OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Kabeer Paul and Shri Aaradhy Shrivastava - Advocates for the
petitioner.
Shri Rajvardhan Datt Parhraha - Government Advocate for the respondents
No.2 & 3/State.
ORDER
Per: Justice Atul Sreedharan The petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by an order dated 18.07.2025 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jabalpur (M.P.), whereby the petitioner's contentions, according to the learned counsel for petitioner, were not considered when the impugned order was passed. When the question as to why the petitioner has not approached the Hon'ble DRT in appeal, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the availability of alternative remedy does not bar this Court from entertaining this petition.
2. In order to support his argument, he has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "D.R. Agrawal vs. New Delhi Municipal Corporation and another [(1998) SCC Online DEL 643]". The said judgment is on Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI Signing time: 9/27/2025 11:09:06 AM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:49340 2 MP-4678-2025 the point of law that the availability of alternate remedy does not bar the High Court from exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is trite and well established law requiring no elucidation. However, the present proceedings are under the SARFAESI Act. Time and again, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have held that proceedings anywhere other than the forums created by the said special statute, must not entertain petitions/cases which fall otherwise under the domain of the DRT and the DRAT.
3. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he would have to suffer financially by paying a pre deposit of 10 percent of the amount mentioned in the impugned order to approach DRAT, by itself, will not justify the entertainment of this petition. It must be stated here, that such a provision in the SARFAESI Act has legislative intent and the purpose of the Courts are to give effect to it.
4. Under the circumstances, this Court holds that there is a suitable alternate remedy which is equally efficacious, available to the petitioner, and therefore, this petition is disposed of, granting the liberty to the petitioner to approach the DRAT seeking the same remedy which has been sought in this petition.
5. With the aforesaid liberty, this petition stands disposed of.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) (PRADEEP MITTAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Shivani
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SHIVANI TIWARI
Signing time: 9/27/2025
11:09:06 AM