(1.) PETITIONERS have sought for quashing the Sale Notifications together with the letter dated 24.2.2010 vide Annexure -'C' issued under SARFAESI Act. They have also sought for a direction to the Respondents to consider their request for one time settlement.
(2.) DURING the pendency of this writ petition, an interim order was granted by this Court, subject to the Petitioners depositing Rs. 30 lakhs. Accordingly, the said amount is deposited by the Petitioner and consequently the interim order is continued till this day. Sri V.B. Shivakumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that even thereafter certain amounts are deposited by the Petitioner. Sri Gururaj Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents -Corporation submits that the Petitioners are not eligible to be considered under one time settlement scheme (called CAR scheme). He brings to the notice of the Court the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Ors. in SLP (C) No. 10145/2010, disposed of on 26.7.2010/
(3.) FROM the above, it is clear that the High Court cannot ignore the availability of statutory remedies under DRT and SURFAESI Act while entertaining the writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India.