VIMALA BHUSHAN Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER YES BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally. On admitted facts, the issue which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether against an order passed under Sec. 14 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short), an aggrieved person has the remedy under Sec. 17 of the Act.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of the writ petition lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner claims to have contributed from her savings and invested in property in question, which is evident from the recitals contained in the sale deed dated 14.07.2003. It appears that in respect of the property in question, a security interest was created in favour of the respondent-Bank. An order under Sec. 14 of the Act was passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 01.09.2017 which was subject matter of challenge at the instance of the petitioner under Sec. 17 of the Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short). The Tribunal by an order dated 12.02.2018 dismissed the application preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner has assailed the validity of the orders dated 01.09.2017 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and order dated 12.02.2018 in this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent raised an objection that the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy of an appeal under Sec. 18 of the Act as the order passed by the Tribunal dated 12.02.2018 is appealable before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal under Sec. 18 of the Act. It is further submitted that the petitioner herself had approached the Tribunal against the order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Sec. 17 of the Act. Therefore, at this stage, she cannot be heard to contend that the petitioner does not have the remedy under Sec. 17 of the Act against an order passed under Sec. 14 of the Act by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. In support of aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to decisions in 'Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Noble Kumar And Ors. 'Deepak Apparels Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. Vs. City Union Bank Ltd. And Ors.', LAWS (KAR)-2016- 3-110, 'Shri. Narendra Jagdish Palse Vs. Indiabulls Hsg.Finance Ltd. And Ors.', W.P.NO.5379/2018 and 'P.Manjunath Kumar and Anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner And Anr.', III (2018) BC 173 (KAR).