UNITED AUTOMOBILES RAILWAY ROAD THROUGH PROPRIETOR SHRI AVTAR SINGH Vs. AUTHORISED OFFICER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, ASSETS RECOVERY DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner seeks for the relief of withdrawal of possession notice issued by the Respondent in terms of the provisions of SARFAESI Act. A possession notice which is issued under Section 13 (4), and further proceedings are appealable under 17, and intervention through a writ petition is clearly not tenable. Here is a case where the contention on behalf of the Bank is that the loan has not been serviced properly and even after the possession notice was ordered, no amount has been paid.

(2.) IT appears that that there was another outstanding debt payable at the instance of M/s Manohar Cycles represented by the partner Avtar Singh, who incidentally described as a proprietor in M/s United Automobiles. In the appeal to the DRT filed against a possession notice issued on the same day for the outstanding loans due from M/s Manohar Cycles, it appears that there was a direction from the DRT for deposit of Rs. 30 lacs which was also duly done. However with reference to the amount outstanding against M/s United Automobiles, there had been no payment. The issue of whether the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act could be a subject of challenge before this Court is no longer res integra and they are governed wealth of cases. In a recent judgment in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev v. State of Maharashtra - : 2011 (2) SCC 782, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that an action taken under Section 14 relating to delivery which is subject of the proceedings under Section 13(4) is still a matter that is appealable and remedy under Article 226 -227 would not be available. In Indian Bank v. Blue Jaggers Estates Limited : 2010(8) SCC 129, the Hon'ble Supreme Court underscored the primacy of a bank as a trustee of public funds and held it was bounden duty of bank to recover the amount by adopting all legally permissible methods. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has pointed out to the object of the SARFAESI Act and the repeated subversions that are sought to be made by resort to proceedings outside the SARFAESI Act. The decisions are not cited for any shocking effect but to be reminded to the imperatives of judicial restraint that becomes essential when a debtor approaches this Court and claims for relief from the High Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. The writ petition is dismissed observing that the Petitioner has other alternative and efficacious remedy under the SARFAESI Act.