Orissa High Court
M/S. Aarel vs Zonal Manager on 5 August, 2024
Bench: S.K. Sahoo, Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18402 of 2024
M/s. Aarel
Foundation Trust,
Jharsuguda ..... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Panda,
Advocate
-versus-
Zonal Manager, Union
Bank of India,
Bhubaneswar and
others ..... Opp. Parties
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 05.08.2024 01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the notice dated 25.07.2024 issued by the opp. party no.2, Authorized Officer -cum- Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, Jharsuguda Branch to Page 1 of 4 take physical possession of the assets of the petitioner under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act with a prayer to direct the opp. party nos.1 and 2 to provide the statement of account (S.O.A.) with a further direction to intimate the petitioner regarding the excess demand thereby violating the settled amount as per discussion dated 27.03.2024 and re-structure the EMIs enabling the petitioner to pay his EMIs regularly and for re- calculation of the outstanding amount to waiving out the excess calculation made violating the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be given liberty to approach the appropriate authority highlighting his grievances and the said authority may be directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law.
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 Page 2 of 4 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 (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 petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, we grant liberty to the petitioner 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 Page 3 of 4 expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. Issue urgent certified copy as per Rules.
( S.K. Sahoo) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge sipun Signature Not Verified Page 4 of 4 Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPUN BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 06-Aug-2024 15:57:30