Madras High Court
Smt.Sivaranjani vs The District Collector & District ... on 24 July, 2017
Bench: S.Manikumar, V.Bhavani Subbaroyan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.07.2017 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN W.P.No.18701 of 2017 and WMP No.20249 of 2017 Smt.Sivaranjani ... Petitioner vs. 1. The District Collector & District Magistrate, Nagapattinam District, O/o.District Collector, Nagapatinam District, Tamilnadu. 2. The Authorised Officer / Branch Manager, Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited, Sundaram Towers, 5th Floor, No.46, Whites Road, Chennai - 600 014. 3. Branch Manager, Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited, Nalli Plaza First Floor, 34 & 34A T.S.R.Big Street, Kumbakonam - 612 001. 4. Mr.U.Rajesh ... Respondents WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari, to call for the records file under Ref:2106/2015/C2 dt.08/03/2017 issued on 13.03.2017 by the 1st respondent and quash the said proceedings as being violate of law under the SARFAESI Act further to the pending application upon the following among other grounds. For Petitioner : Mr.Rajendran Raghavan ORDER
(Order of the Court was delivered by S.MANIKUMAR, J) Petitioner's husband has borrowed a sum of Rs.60 Lakhs, for running a Brick Chamber. The petitioner has agreed to be the guarantor. There were some set back in running the business and therefore, repayment of the entire loan, could not be made. However, it is the contention of the petitioner that out of family sources, a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs has been paid, as against loan of Rs.60 Lakhs. According to the petitioner, she has not created any security interest of the residential property.
2. The Authorised Officer/Branch Manager, Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited, Chennai and Branch Manager, Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited, Kumbakonam, respondents 2 and 3, respectively, has filed an application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, before the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapatinam District, seeking assistance to take possession of the security interest. Inasmuch as the subject property has not been mortgaged by the petitioner, notice dated 08.03.2017 of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapatinam District, directing the petitioner/Guarantor, Mr.Rajesh, borrower/husband of the writ petitioner and other guarantors/ Father-in-law and Mother-in-law of the writ petitioner, to participate in the enquiry on 24.03.2017, is illegal and contrary to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Hence, the instant writ petition is filed to call for the notice dated 13.03.2017 of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapatinam District, and to quash the same.
3. Heard Mr.Rajendran Raghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.
4. Supporting affidavit filed in Application under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapatinam District, indicates that respondents therein viz., Mr.U.Ramesh, husband of the writ petitioner, Mrs.U.Amudha and Mr.M.Uthirapathy, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the writ petitioner, respectively and Mrs.Sivaranjani, writ petitioner/wife of the borrower, who stood, as the guarantors have been impleaded as respondents therein and that at paragraph No.5 of the supporting affidavit, the Authorised Officer of M/s.Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited, has submitted that the respondents therein had created a security interest, over the properties, mentioned in the schedule therein, by way of equitable mortgage, by deposit of title deed. In the said application, the bank has further contended that, a demand notice under Section 13(2) & 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, for symbolic possession has been issued. According to the bank, the respondents therein, are liable to pay a sum of Rs.68,16,708/-. Schedule of property mentioned in the application, filed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, is extracted hereunder.
"SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the property comprised in T.S.No.964, Block No.28, Ward No.3, Kurainadu, Mayiladuthurai Taluk, Mayiladuthurai Town, Gandhi Nagar, 3rd Cross, (Sengamettu Street North Part), Site NO.6, Door No.6, bounded on the North by: East to West Lay out Road, South by: Site No.13, East by: Site No.7 and West by: Site No.5, measuring an extent of (96*40) 3840 sq.ft or 356.75 sq. mtr of land along with 1138 sq.ft or 105.73 sq.mtr builtup area of First Floor and 488 sq.ft or 45.34 sq.mtr builtup area of second floor, along with all other appurtenant thereto with all easmentary right to the property, situated within the District of Nagapattinam and Registration District of Mayiladuthurai, Sub-Registration District of Mayiladuthrai Joint-1, which is morefully described in the Registered Sale Deed No.1462/2013."
5. Material on record further discloses that while availing the loan, Mr.U.Amudha and Mr.M.Uthirapathi, in-laws of the writ petitioner, the borrower Mr.U.Rajesh and the writ petitioner, have executed a general Power of Attorney to and in favour of M/s.Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited, wherein, at Clause No.(i) of the Power of Attorney have agreed that all of the above, have stated as hereunder.
"Whereas by an agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the said agreement") made between Sundaram BNP Paribas and the Borrower, Sundaram BNP Paribas has agreed to lend to the Borrower.
And the Borrower has agreed to borrow from Sundaram BNP Paribas the loan amount as stated in the schedule mentioned in the said agreement. Whereas the Borrower hereby empowers Sundaram BNP Paribas to do the following acts, deed, things, viz.
i) To assign the right and interest of Borrower as mortgagors in the property detailed in the schedule detailed in the said agreement which has been mortgaged to Sundaram BNP Paribas by the Borrower and create mortgage / charge on the said property to such persons as Sundaram BNP Paribas deem fit."
6. Schedule of property mentioned, in the power of attorney, as per annexure No.I, is as follows:
All that piece and parcel of the property comprised in T.S.No.964, Block No.28, Ward No.3, Kurainadu, Mayiladuthurai Taluk, Mayiladuthurai Town, Gandhi Nagar, 3rd Cross, (Sengamettu Street North Part), Site No.6, Door No.6, bounded on the North by: East to West Lay out Road, South by: Site No.13, East by: Site No.7 and West by: Site No.5, measuring an extent of (96*40) 3840 sq.ft or 356.75 sq. mtr of land along with 1138 sq.ft or 105.73 sq.mtr builtup area of First Floor and 488 sq.ft or 45.34 sq.mtr builtup area of second floor, along with all other appurtenant thereto with all easmentary right to the property, situated within the District of Nagapattinam and Registration District of Mayiladuthurai, Sub-Registration District of Mayiladuthrai Joint-I, which is morefully described in the Registered Sale Deed No.1462/2013."
7. Impugned notice dated 08.03.2017 of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapatinam District, is extracted hereunder ehs; 08/03/2017 ehfg;gl;odk;
mwptpg;g[ bghUs; : SARFAESI Act, 2002 - ehfg;gl;odk; khtl;lk;.
kapyhLJiw tl;lk;. TiwehL. thu;L ? 3. fhe;jp efu;. vd;w Kfthpapy; trpf;Fk; jpU/c/uhn$c&; j-bg/ cj;jpuhgjp vd;gthpd; brYj;jg;glhj t';fp fld;
bjhiff;F flDf;F <lhf itf;fg;gl;l brhj;jpid Rthjpdk; nfhUjy; ? tprhuizf;F M$uhfpl bjhptpg;gJ ? bjhlu;ghf ghu;it : 1/ The Authorized Officer Sundaram BNP Paribas - Home Finance Limited (India) Chennai - 14 dt 23.01.2015 2/ tl;lhl;rpau; kapyhLJiw K/K/1009-2015-m3 ehs; 3/07/2015 3/ ehfg;gl;odk; khtl;l Ml;rpau; mtu;fspd; tprhuiz ehs; 24/11/2016 ghu;it 1 ,y; fhQqk; foj;jpy;. ehfg;gl;odk; khtl;lk;. kapyhLJiw tl;lk;. TiwehL. thu;L?3. fhe;jp efu;. vd;w Kfthpapy; trpf;Fk; jpU/c/uhn$c&; j-bg/ cj;jpuhgjp vd;gthpd; brYj;jg;glhj t';fp fld; bjhiff;F <lhf itf;fg;gl;l kapyhLJiw tl;lk; kw;Wk; efuk;. TiwehL. fhe;jp efu;. gpshf; ? 28. thu;L?3. efust[ vz;/964 (356/75 r/kP) Rthjpdk; vLj;J ju nfhug;gl;Ls;sJ/ ,t;tpdk; bjhlu;ghf kPz;Lk; 24/03/2017 md;W khiy 4/00 kzpf;F ehfg;gl;odk; khtl;l Ml;rpau; mYtyfj;jpy; khtl;l Ml;rpj; jiytu; mtu;fshy; ? ,Wjp tprhuiz bra;ag;gl cs;sjhy; nkw;go jpdj;jpy; fPH;fhQqk; Kfthpjhuu;fs; jtwhJ fye;Jbfhs;s ntz;oaJ/ ,jpy; jtWk;gl;rj;jpy; M$uhfjtu;fs; jug;gpy; brhy;ypf; bfhs;s VJkpy;iy vd fUjp ,Uf;Fk; Mtz';fs; mog;gilapy; nkw;eltof;if vLf;fg;gLk; vd;w tptuKk; bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/ Xk;--???
khtl;ll Ml;rpaUf;fhf ehfg;gl;odk;
--Mizg;go--
mYtyf nkshsu; (Fw;wtpay;) bgWeu;.
1/ The Authorized Officer, Sundaram BNP Paribas - Home Finance Limited (India), Sundaram Towers, No.46, Whites Road, Roypeetah, Chennai - 14.
2/ jpU/c/uhn$c&;.
j-bg/ cj;jpuhgjp. gpshl; be/6. fjt[ vz;/6 thu;L vz;/3 fhe;jp efu;. TiwehL. kapyhLJiw kw;Wk; tl;lk; ? 609 102 3/ jpUkjp rptu";rdp.
f-bg/ c/uhn$c&;. gpshl; be/6. fjt[ vz;/6 thu;L vz;/3 fhe;jp efu;. TiwehL. kapyhLJiw kw;Wk; tl;lk; ? 609 102 4/ jpU/cj;jpuhgjp j-bg/ v!;/kfhuh$h 38V 1-7 brUf;Fo bkapd;nuhL kfhjhdk; (m";ry;) rPu;fhHp ? 609 103 5/ jpUkjp/ c/mKjh f-bg/cj;jpuhgjp.
38V 1-7 brUf;Fo bkapd;nuhL kfhjhdk; (m";ry;) rPu;fhHp ? 609 103 6/ The Authorized Officer, Sundaram BNP Paribas - Home Finance Limited (India), Old Door No.36 @ 34-A, TSR Big St., Kumbakonam - 612 001
8. Material on record discloses that subsequently, on 13.03.2017, on the petition of Mr.Rajesh, filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, a reply dated 15.03.2017 has been given, which is extracted.
N.K.2016/2016/C2 District Administrative Office Date : 15.03.2017 Nagapattinam SUBJECT:
Right to Information Act 2005 Nagapattinam District, Seerkazhi Taluk, Magathanam Post, Thillaividangkan Village, Mr.Rajesh, S/o.Uthirapathi has requested for some information Filling of relevant fee information - Issuance of petitioner requested document copy Regarding. Points :
1. Mr.Rajesh, S/o.Uthirapathi, Thillaividangkan, date of Petition 13.08.2016.
2. This office's N.K.2016/2016/C2 date 06.09.2016
3. Mr.Rajesh, S/o.Uthirapathi, date of attachment of acknowledgment slip 13.03.2017.
In the above mentioned point No.1, the petitioner has requested information regarding a petition to take measure on the Organization The Authorized Officer, Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited, formerly known as Sundaram Finance Limited, Whites Road, Chennai with respect to the act 'SARFAESI Act 2002'. As per his petition, the following information is given to the petitioner. It is informed that, Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited, formerly known as Sundaram Finance Limited, Whites Road, Chennai-14 and its branch at old door No.36/36A, TSR Big Street, Kumbakonam 612 001, represented by the authorized officer, Mr.Shanmugam has filed a document consists of 74 pages. But the petitioner has paid a fee of Rs.100 which is insufficient to provide the complete document. If the remaining amount of Rs.48 is paid by the petitioner on corresponding heading, the complete document will be given to the petitioner. It is being informed that, as per above mentioned point No.3, the petitioner has paid the fee of Rs.150 and requested for the complete document. Along with this, the copy of the complete document [74 pages] filed by Mr.Shanmugam, the authorized officer, Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited, formerly known as Sundaram Finance Limited, Whites Road, Chennai-14 and its branch at old door No.36/36A, TSR Big Street, Kumbakonam 612 001, is attached.
General Information Officer and Personal Assistant of District Admin Head, Nagapattinam To, Mr.Rajesh, S/o.Uthirapathi, Thillaividangkam, Magathanam Post, Seerkazhi Taluk.
9. What is impugned before this Court, is only the notice dated 08.03.2017 of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapatinam District, requesting the writ petitioner/guarantor, the borrower and others, to participate in the enquiry, on the petition filed by the bank, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
10. Section 14 of the Act, reads thus:
"14. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate to assist secured creditor in taking possession of secured asset (1) Where the possession of any secured assets is required to be taken by the secured creditor or if any of the secured asset is required to be sold or transferred by the secured creditor under the provisions of this Act, the secured creditor may, for the purpose of taking possession or control of any such secured asset, request, in writing, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction any such secured asset or other documents relating thereto may be situated or found, to take possession thereof, and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or, as the case may be, the District Magistrate shall, on such request being made to him--
(a) take possession of such asset and documents relating thereto; and
(b) forward such assets and documents to the secured creditor.
(2) For the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of sub-section (1), the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate may take or cause to be taken such steps and use, or cause to be used, such force, as may, in his opinion, be necessary.
(3) No act of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate done in pursuance of this section shall be called in question in any court or before any authority."
11. On this day, when the writ petition came up for hearing, Mr.Rajendran Raghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in response to the notice dated 08.03.2017, a detailed written submission dated 17.07.2017, has been made, by the writ petitioner.
12. When the decision, on the application filed by the bank, under Section 14 of the Act, is pending on the file of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapatinam District, who is empowered under the Act, to decide as to whether any assistance is required to be granted to the bank to get possession of the secured asset or not, apprehending that the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapatinam District, would not consider the submissions of the petitioner and if any order under Section 14 of the Act is passed, the same could be executed, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that there shall be a direction to the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapatinam District, to consider the submissions.
13. First of all, on the facts and circumstances of this case, we are not inclined to issue any writ of certiorari to quash the notice dated 08.03.2017 to the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapatinam District, for the reason that the issuance of notice, to the borrower and guarantors, including the authorised officer of M/s.Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited, is only an exercise of power under Section 14 of the Act. Such exercise, directing the parties to appear for an enquiry, cannot at any stretch of imagination be said as illegal or unauthorised.
14. As per Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
"17. Right to appeal: (1) Any person (including borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of section 13 taken by the secured creditor or his authorised officer under this Chapter, may make an application alongwith such fee, as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within forty-five days from the date on which such measure had been taken:
PROVIDED that different fees may be prescribed for making the application by the borrower and the person other than the borrower."
15. Borrower/guarantor has got a right of remedy by filing a SARFAESI Application under Section 17(1) of the Act, against any of the measures taken by the secured creditor. Seeking assistance, under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, to get possession of the secured asset, is one of the measures available to the secured creditor and therefore, if any order is passed, by the District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruppur District, granting assistance, the same can be assailed under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. After considering a catena of decisions, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited Vs. Canara Bank, reported in 2015 (3) LW 401, held as follows:
"11. On careful perusal of the aforestated judicial pronouncements rendered by the Supreme Court, it is manifest that an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is maintainable by any person, including borrower against any of the measure referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act. It was clearly held that passing of the order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is in continuation of the measure taken under Section 13(4). Thus, an appeal against the order for obtaining possession under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is maintainable before the Tribunal.
12. In Standard Chartered Bank (supra), the Supreme Court, while considering as to whether it is mandatory for the secured creditor to make an attempt to obtain possession on his own before approaching the Magistrate under Section 14, held that it is not mandatory. In that context, it was held that even after possession of the secured asset is handed over to the secured creditor under the order passed by the CMM or District Magistrate, as the case may be, in exercise of power under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, an appeal under Section 17 is preferable. Under such circumstance, it cannot be presumed that if the possession has not been handed over even after passing of the order under Section 14, an appeal under Section 17 is not maintainable. If the aforestated contention of the respondent Bank to the extent that without handing over the possession of the secured asset pursuant to the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, an appeal under Section 17 is not maintainable, is accepted, the statutory right conferred on the borrower to prefer an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act against the measure taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act would become redundant.
13. Section 13(4) stipulates taking over symbolic possession of the secured assets. Section 14 contemplates taking physical possession of the secured assets with the assistance of the order of the CMM or District Magistrate, as the case may be. Both actions come within the definition of measure / action under sub-section (4) of Section 13, and as such, the appeal under Section 17 SARFAESI Act against the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is maintainable. The handing over of possession by the borrower or taking over possession of the secured asset by the secured creditor pursuant to the order passed under Section 14 is not mandatory or precondition for the purpose of preferring an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
14. The ratio deducible from the case of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar (supra) is that no remedy of appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act is available to the lessee / tenant, who is in lawful possession, to the Debts Recovery Tribunal against the decision of the CMM or the District Magistrate for the reason that the Tribunal is not competent and has no power to restore the possession of the said property to any other person, including lessees, except borrower. However, an appeal at the instance of the borrower or guarantor against the order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act by the CMM or District Magistrate is maintainable under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. In the instant case, an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act against the order passed under Section 14 is maintainable. The learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that no appeal against the order passed by the CMM under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act is maintainable. "
16. On the aspect of alternative remedy, and entertaining a writ petition, this Court deems it fit to consider few decisions.
(i) In Precision Fastenings v. State Bank of Mysore, reported in 2010(2) LW 86, this Court held as follows:
"This Court has repeatedly held in a number of decisions right from the decision in Division Electronics Ltd. v. Indian Bank (DB) Markandey Katju, C.J., (2005 (3) C.T.C., 513), that the remedy of the aggrieved party as against the notice issued under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act is to approach the appropriate Tribunal and the writ petition is not maintainable. The same position has been succinctly stated by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Transcore v. Union Of India (2006 (5) C.T.C. 753) in paragraph No. 26 wherein the Supreme Court has held as under: The Tribunal under the DRT Act is also the Tribunal under the NPA Act. Under Section 19 of the DRT Act read with Rule 7 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1993 (1993 Rules), the applicant bank or FI has to pay fees for filing such application to DRT under the DRT Act and, similarly, a borrower, aggrieved by an action under Section 13(4) of NPA Act was entitled to prefer an Application to the DRT under Section 17 of NPA. (Emphasis added) "
(ii) In Union Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon, reported in 2010 (5) LW 193 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph Nos.16 to 18 and 27 to 29, held as follows:
"16. The facts of the present case show that even after receipt of notices under Section 13(2) and (4) and order passed under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not bother to pay the outstanding dues. Only a paltry amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid by respondent No. 1 on 29.10.2007. She did give an undertaking to pay the balance amount in installments but did not honour her commitment. Therefore, the action taken by the appellant for recovery of its dues by issuing notices under Section 13(2) and 13(4) and by filing an application under Section 14 cannot be faulted on any legally permissible ground and, in our view, the Division Bench of the High Court committed serious error by entertaining the writ petition of respondent No. 1.
17. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If respondent No. 1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1). The expression any person used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pass interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.
18. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for re-dressal of his grievance. It must be remembered that stay of an action initiated by the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities for recovery of taxes, cess, fees, etc. seriously impedes execution of projects of public importance and disables them from discharging their constitutional and legal obligations towards the citizens. In cases relating to recovery of the dues of banks, financial institutions and secured creditors, stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of such bodies/institutions, which ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation. Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters. Of course, if the petitioner is able to show that its case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad AIR 1969 SC 556, Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1=1999-2-L.W. 200 and Harbanslal Sahnia and another v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others (2003) 2 SCC 107 and some other judgments, then the High Court may, after considering all the relevant parameters and public interest, pass appropriate interim order.
27. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.
28. Insofar as this case is concerned, we are convinced that the High Court was not at all justified in injuncting the appellant from taking action in furtherance of notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Act.
29. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Since the respondent has not appeared to contest the appeal, the costs are made easy."
(iii) In Saraspathy Sundararaj v. Authorised Officer and Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, reported in (2010) 5 LW 560, the Court held as follows:
"The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the possession notice dated 16.09.2004 issued by the respondent under the SARFAESI Act and consequently direct the respondent to effect the settlement in accordance with the SBI OTS-SME 2010 Scheme as contained in its letter dated 18.03.2010 and unconditionally restore physical possession of the six rooms taken physical possession by it at No. 29, Sarojini Street, T. Nagar, Chennai - 17 with such damages.
... When a specific forum has been created which enables the borrower to challenge the action of the financial institution by filing necessary petition under Section 17, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. What could not be achieved by the petitioner by filing a petition before the appropriate Forum, which is at present barred by period of limitation, could not be permitted to be achieved by extending the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. Above all, since the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the loan by transferring the property in favour of her son, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition.
........
9. In the light of the above decision of the Honourable Supreme Court, the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the possession notice issued to her long back is legally not sustainable. We are of the considered view that this petition has been filed only to drag on the proceedings and to evade repayment of the loan. That be so, the petitioner has no legal right to compel the bank to accept the one time settlement offer made by her.
........
13. The present case is identical in nature and it is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court mentioned supra. In this case, the petitioner has violated the condition of mortgage by transferring the secured asset in favour of her son and therefore, as per clause 1.7 of the OTS Scheme offered by the bank, the petitioner has to be excluded from extending the benefits of the scheme which was rightly done by the bank. In any event, without exhausting the alternative remedy, the relief sought for by the petitioner by invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of The Constitution of India cannot be granted."
17. Following the decision stated supra, and in the light of the discussion, we are of the view that when an effective and alternate remedy is available, we are of the view that the instant writ petition is not maintainable.
18. Insofar as the prayer directing the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapatinam District, to consider the submissions of the petitioner, we only like to direct the said authority, to consider, what the statute requires him to do, and to pass orders, in accordance with law.
19. With the above observations, writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(S.M.K., J.) (V.B.S., J.) 24.07.2017 Index: Yes Internet: Yes ars To
1. The District Collector & District Magistrate, Nagapattinam District, O/o.District Collector, Nagapatinam District, Tamilnadu.
2. The Authorised Officer / Branch Manager, Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited, Sundaram Towers, 5th Floor, No.46, Whites Road, Chennai - 600 014.
3. Branch Manager, Sundaram BNP Paribas Home Finance Limited, Nalli Plaza First Floor, 34 & 34A T.S.R.Big Street, Kumbakonam - 612 001.
S.MANIKUMAR, J.
AND V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN, J.
ars W.P.No.18701 of 2017 and WMP No.20249 of 2017 24.07.2017