Orissa High Court
Sanjay Roul vs Union Bank Of India .... Opp. Party on 9 January, 2025
Bench: S.K. Sahoo, Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.33238 of 2024
Sanjay Roul .... Petitioner
Mr. Sarada Dash, Advocate
-versus-
Union Bank of India .... Opp. Party
Mr. Girish Kumar Sundaray,
Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Tuna Sahu, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 09.01.2025 01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opposite party-Bank.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Sanjay Roul with a prayer to direct the opposite party- Bank to consider the proposal letter of OTS dated 06.12.2024 under Annexure-3.
It appears that the sale notice under the SARFAESI Act has already been issued on 12.12.2024. In the case of United Bank of India -Vrs.- Satyawati Tondon and others reported in (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 110, it has been held that if Page 1 of 3 any one has any tangible grievance against the notice 13(4), he can avail remedy by filing an application under section 17(1). The Tribunal is empowered to pass interim order under section 17 and is required to decide the matter within a fixed time schedule which is both expeditious and effective.
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."Page 2 of 3
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. If such an approach is made, 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.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.
( S.K. Sahoo) Judge ( Chittaranjan Dash) Judge RKM Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Jan-2025 18:21:52 Page 3 of 3