Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Technical Cool Service Centre vs Bank Of Maharastra on 17 March, 2016
WP-4636-2016
(M/S TECHNICAL COOL SERVICE CENTRE Vs BANK OF MAHARASTRA)
17-03-2016
Mohs. Wajeed Haider, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri A.P. Singh, learned Govt. Adv for respondent -State.
Heard.
In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner have challenged the validity of the order dated 09.12.2015, (Ann. P-5) passed by the Collector in exercise of powers under Section 14 Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
When a query was put to learned counsel for the petitioner as to availability of the alternative remedy, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner is ready to avail the alternative remedy, if this Court declines to entertain the writ petition.
I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. The Supreme Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank Vs. V.Noble Kumar and others, 2013(9) SCC 620, has held that an order passed by the Magistrate under Section 14 of the Act directing to take possession of the property, is appealable under Section 17 of the Act. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others, (2010) 8 SC 110. It has further been held that if an alternative remedy is available under the statute, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not be exercised.
In view of aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to file an appeal under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Needless to state if the petitioners file an appeal along with an application for stay before the Debts Recovery Tribunal within a period of one week from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the same shall be decided on merits in accordance with law. Till the application for stay is decided by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE bks