MUTHU THEVAR (DIED) Vs. RECOVERY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.264 of 2010 in R.P.No.34 of 2008 in D.R.C.No.29 of 2008, passed by the Recovery Officer, the third party petitioner has filed the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(MD)No.l643 of 2010. So far as the Civil Revision Petition in C.R.P.(MD)No.l653 of 2011 is concerned, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Recovery Officer in D.R.C.No.29 of 2008 in R.P.No.34 of 2008.

(2.) It is a settled position that when the aggrieved party got alternate remedy to challenge the order passed by the Recovery Officer by way of an appeal before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Sec. 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institution Act, the Civil Revision Petitions cannot be entertained.

(3.) The Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of The Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs. Mathew K.C., reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85 and Agarwal Tracom Private Limited Vs. Punjab National Bank and others, reported in (2018) 1 SCC 626 has held that the aggrieved parties cannot challenge the SARFAESI proceedings directly by filing a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India without exhausting the appeal remedy available to them.