DELTA ELECTRICALS Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the medium of the instant Petition, the Petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court in granting it the following relief(s):

(2.) From the perusal of the pleadings on record, what emerges is that the Petitioner is a borrower of financial assistance from the Respondent-Bank and, having failed to repay the same within the specified timeframe, the Respondent-Bank appears to have proceeded against the Petitioner in terms of the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstructing of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2002").

(3.) Sec. 17 of the Act of 2002, which is an additional safeguard, gives a person, including the borrower, aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in Sub-Sec. 4 of Sec. 13 of the Act of 2002 taken by the secured creditor or his authorized officer under this Chapter, an option to make an application along with such fee as may be prescribed to the Debts Recovery Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter within. In these circumstances, the Petitioner could have made an application to the Debts Recovery Tribunal which is a remedy created under the Statute and on the strength of such a Scheme, the Petitioner could have taken the recourse to the said provision. It is settled legal position that where a statutory right to file an appeal has been provided for it is not open to the High Court to entertain a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a recent judgment rendered in case titled "Phoenix ARC Private Limited v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and Ors." decided on 12th of January, 2022 in Civil Appeal Nos. 257-259 of 2022, has already reiterated this legal position. We, in this behalf, are also fortified by the view taken by a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court at Jammu Wing in case titled "G. A. Mineral Water Company Pvt. Ltd. V. Union of India and Ors.", reported as "2018 (4) JKJ 231".