1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 02.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Petition (MD) No.6595 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 X.John Kennedy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. 2.The Authorized Officer cum Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Tallakulam Branch, No.73, Alagar Kovil Road, Madurai - 625 020. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in S.A.No.111 of 2011, dated 23.05.2005, passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same. For petitioner .. Mr.R.Subramanian For 2nd respondent .. Mr.R.Pandivel ORDER (Order of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J.) This writ petition is filed challenging the proceedings in S.A.No.111 of 2011, dated 23.05.2005, passed by the second respondent/Bank under the SARFAESI Act. 2. Mr.R.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly contend that the petitioner is willing to settle the matter amicably and he has also filed statutory appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai and further the stay application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. It is contended that in view of the same, the petitioner may be granted some breathing time for approaching the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal for preferring an appeal against the order passed by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Debts Recovery Tribunal, dismissing the stay petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner has already paid a sum of Rs.30 lakhs, as per the order of this Court, dated 22.06.2011, in M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 in W.P.(MD).No.6595 of 2011. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Bank would submit that this is a matter involving more than 1.5 crores and as on date, a total outstanding of Rs.70 lakhs is due on the side of the writ petitioner. It is contended that the writ petitioner is having alternative remedy of filing appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and he has to exhaust only the said remedy, as per law and as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions made by both sides and also perused the materials available on record. 5. At the outset, it is to be stated that even as per the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Debts Recovery Tribunal has dismissed the stay petition filed by the petitioner, seeking for the relief of staying auction sale and as against the same, the petitioner has to prefer only a statutory appeal before the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal. It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 clearly held that when there is an alternative remedy available, as per statute, the parties are bound to avail the said remedy and they cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is specifically observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as hereunder: "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 the 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." 6. In yet another latest decision, in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and others Vs. State of Maharashtra & others reported in 2011 (4) L.W. 332, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as hereunder: "20. We are in respectful agreement with the above enunciation of law on the point. It is manifest that an action under Section 14 of the Act constitutes an action taken after the stage of Section 13(4) and therefore, the same would fall within the ambit of Section 17(1) of the Act. Thus, the Act itself contemplates an efficacious remedy for the borrower or any person affected by an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 action under Section 13(4) of the Act, by providing for an appeal before the DRT. 21. In our opinion, therefore, the High Court rightly dismissed the petition on the ground that an efficacious remedy was available to the appellants under Section 17 of the Act. It is well-settled that ordinarily relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available, if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person." 7. In view of the above settled principles of law, laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the decisions cited supra, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal in the manner known to law. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Madurai. 2.The Authorized Officer cum Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Tallakulam Branch, No.73, Alagar Kovil Road, Madurai - 625 020. Copy to: The Section Officer, E.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. W.P.(MD)No.6595 of 2011 02.12.2011 gcg NSV/10.12.11/3P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/