Khushi Gupta
Published on: June 8, 2022 at 17:55 IST
The Supreme Court recently reiterated that when a remedy under the statute is available, filing of a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is to be discouraged by the High Court.
The Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi & Vikram Nath rendered this observation while considering Special Leave Petition preferred by secured creditor assailing Telangana High Court’s orders passed in a SARFAESI matter.
Proceedings were initiated under SARFAESI, 2002 against the Respondent/ borrower after he had committed default and his account was declared as NPA.
This was challenged by the Respondent/ borrower in Writ and thereafter further action was initiated by the Petitioner in publishing the auction-cum-sale notice dated 27th February, 2019.
Later another Writ was filed assailing the auction notice. After filing of the Writ Petitions, the Respondent approached the Debt Recovery Tribunal with an Appeal along with an application for stay on auction.
A conditional order passed directions were issued to the bank to proceed with the auction sale, but not to confirm the same.
Taking note of the conditional order of DRT (Debt Recovery Tribunal) dated 28th March 2019, the High Court on 8th April, 2019 passed an order with a further direction to the Petitioner to return the possession of the subject property to the Respondent.
While issuing notice on 3rd July, 2019, the Top Court granted the bank Interim Relief and directed the parties to maintain status quo.
On being apprised of the same, the Top Court said, “Since the substantive issue was to be examined by the DRT in the pending SA No.109 of 2019 and since the respondent/borrower has remained a defaulter and after the account became NPA, possession of the secured assets was taken over by the petitioner bank, in this backdrop, nothing further survives to be examined in this petition and the special leave petition has become infructuous.”