IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA ---------- Letters Patent Appeal No.841 of 2010 --------- Appeal against the judgment and order dated 22-3-2010 passed by a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.4800 of 2010. -------- 1. State Bank Of India through its Branch Manager, Industrial Finance Branch Nageshwar Colony, Boring Road, Patna. 2. State Bank of India , Boring Road Branch through its Branch Manager, Boring Road Branch, Patna....................................... Appellants Versus 1. Sri Brij Kishore Prasad, Son of Late Bindeshwari Prasad, Dhurlakh House, Bhawar Pokhar, Patna 2. The Debts Recovery Tribunal,396, East Boring Canal Road, Patna- 800 001, through its Presiding Officer.............................Respondents ------- For the appellant- M/s Mr. Aditya Sharan, Mr.PrabhatKr.Sharan, Mr. Hemant Kr.Sharan Advocates. For the respondent:- 7 22-11-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants. Nobody appears for the respondents although after notice they have appeared through counsel. 2. By the order under appeal the writ petition preferred by writ petitioner ( respondent no.1 herein) has been 2 allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated 12-11- 2009 passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal in SARFAESI APPEAL NO. 28 of 2007 has been set aside on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice and the matter has been remanded for fresh hearing by the Debt Recovery Tribunal only after the State Bank of India ( respondent in the writ court and appellant herein) makes over all the documents as asked by the writ petitioner and for disposal after hearing the parties. Unless the documents are handed over to respondent no.1, the appeal is not to proceed any further. 3. We have noticed the relevant facts only in brief. It is not in dispute that the Bank filed an original application bearing O.A. No. 24 of 1994 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for realization of an amount of Rs.64,17,836.09 paise along with interest under section 19 of the Debt Recovery Act. That could not be disposed of for a number of years and ultimately the Bank issued notice under section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 17-5-2006 which was served on 7-6-2007. The writ petitioner had approached this Court earlier also through writ petition bearing 3 C.W.J.C. No. 12410 of 2007 which was disposed of on 26- 9-2007. He was directed to seek remedy by filing appeal under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The appeal under section 17 was numbered as SARFAESI Case No. 28 of 2007 and the same was dismissed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal by the impugned order dated 12-11-2009 which has been set aside by the writ court. 4. The short point raised on behalf of appellant Bank is that since statutory remedy is provided under the SARFAESI Act against the order passed under section 17 of the Act hence the writ court should not have interfered in the matter. Section 18 of the Act provides for such an appeal before the appellate tribunal within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Under various provisos conditions have been prescribed which, inter alia, require for deposit with the appellate tribunal 50% of the amount of debt due as claimed by the secured creditors or determined by the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The appellate tribunal, however, has power to reduce the amount by not less than 25% of the debt as mentioned above. 4 5. In support of the aforesaid stand, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon a judgment of the apex court in the case of Satyawati Tondan, AIR. 2010 SC 3413. Paragraph-27 of that judgment is as follows :- “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”. 6. The aforesaid concern shown by the Apex Court was after discussing several earlier judgments in various paragraphs in which also it was emphasized that availability of alternative or effective remedy under the statute specially in financial matter must be kept in mind by the High Courts when they are called upon to exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Such a view was also taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 16-7-2004 passed in L.P.A. No. 564 of 2004 ( Union Bank of India Vrs.M/s Kwality Paper (P) Ltd. and anr. In that 5 judgment reliance was placed upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Vrs. O.C. Krishnan, reported in 2001 ISJ ( Banking ) 741. In another judgment and order dated 12-7-11 passed in L.P.A. No. 761 of 2011 (M/s Hi Tech Auto Mobiles Vrs. Union Bank of India and others) to which one of us (Shiva Kirti Singh,J ) was a party, a similar view was taken and it was held that unless there be very exceptional circumstances, such as challenge to provisions of law etc. the writ petitioner must be relegated to avail the statutory alternative remedy where it is found to exist. That judgment was also in the context of SARFAESI Act and it was observed “ that the provisions in the Act constitute a scheme and ordinarily it is not desirable that the said scheme be interrupted at the interlocutory stage which can only delay the realization of the Bank’s dues in accordance with law and thus, frustrate the very purpose of the Act.” 7. In view of the facts noticed above and the law, we are of the considered view that there was no exceptional circumstance in the present case to warrant interference in spite of availability of statutory remedy. Since we are not 6 persuaded to enter into merits of the controversy, it would not be proper to discuss the issue considered by the writ court but we may indicate that the issue of natural justice may not be attracted in a case of present nature which has to be governed by the provisions of the SARFAESI Act itself. However, the Tribunal constituted under the Act can always exercise their powers in appropriate manner in the interest of justice if occasion arises for the same. 8. In view of aforesaid discussions, the order under appeal is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed with an observation that if so advised, the writ petitioner may avail statutory remedy under section 18 of the SARFAESI Act by preferring appeal before the appellate tribunal. If such an appeal is filed within 30 days from today then the same should be considered on merits without raising the issue of limitation. 9. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Ahsanuddin Amanullah,J) 7