ff1-^-1 @ iMfs" f- agws-. "Si:i£'-?^^^^^ PL,^SV§'e IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No. 6QOQ / 3010 PETITIONER MRS. NISHAJEHOASH W/o Shri. Manish Kant Jehoash Aged about 38 Years, House Wife, R/o: House No. MIG No.17 Sagardeep Enclave, Ameri, Near Usalapur Rly.Crossing, (PO) Usalapur, BILASPUR (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS C/^&j^v^) 0 ^ 'V . ^. %'^ >^y \° y' .w' g ^l'pA.fisaV'2' S 1 ^fti3^'ts-s'-¥»'f &'%'!>. .-'"5, ^ eS f°cY!<;/a--n'^ 7^7:^py kJ~^> /6. CENTBANKHOME FmANCE LIMITED, (A subsidiary ofCentral Bank oflndia) Throueh : The Branch Manager, Cent Bank Home Finance Limited, Gandhi Chowk, Near Laxmi Talkies, Juna, BILASPUR - 495001 (Chhattisgarh) TheBranch Manager, ICICI HOME FINANCE CO. LTD. Shop No. 115/116, Krishna Complex, Shastri Chowk, RAIPUR(CG) Smt. Boondi Bai W/o Late Shri. Jageshwar Prasad Yadav Aged about 74 Years, Farmer, R/o : Mungeli Road, Near Ajanti Saw Mill, BILASPUR(CG) M/s Surya Builders & Promoters, Through : Its Proprietor-Santosh Kumar Sahu, S/o Late Shri. Mansharam Sahu, Residing at: Kali Mandir, Tifra, BILASPUR(CG) Ku. Poornima Shukla D/o Mr. Hanuman Prasad Shukla, R/o : In front ofNova Office, Civil Lines, Ware House Road, BILASPUR(CG) The Sub-Registrar, • Registrar Office, BILASPUR(CG) L ^ 3 H 1 1 1> 1^1 IH In M M <1 § H n 1Ij ^ § 1§ 1§ > n'na HIGHCQURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant KumarMishra Writ Petition (227) No.6000 of 2010 Petitioner Respondents versus Mrs. Nisha Jehoash Cent Bank Home Finance Limited and others Present: Shri B.P.Rao, counsel forthe petitioner. Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ORAL ORDER (Passed on 16th December, 2010) Hea:d on admission. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12-7-2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur on an application and in exercise of powers under Section 14 ofthe Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security InterestAct, 2002 (henceforth 'the SARFAESI Act'). 3. Respondent No.1 had submitted the subject application after issuance of and publication of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act when the borrower did not deposit the loan amount after expiry of the period of 60 days. The application under Section 14.has been moved for taking possession ofthe secured asset. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has issued warrant of possession in favour ofrespondent No.1. .0 w 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is not the borrower and is bona fide purchaser of the properi:y from its previous owner and is in possession since last so many years. According to the learned counsel, there is no outstanding amount against the petitioner, therefore, issuance of warrant of possession without arraying the petitioner as party is illegal. 5. In United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tondon and others, decided on 26th July, 2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph 17 of the report thus: "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 ofwide 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 persoh and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and 1 the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the Gopal 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 theConstitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute." 6. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in view of the availability of the alternative remedy of filing an application before the tribunal under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition filed under Article 227 offhe Constitution of India. 7. The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge