PENGUIN TEXTILES LIMITED Vs. INDIAN BANK AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri T.K.Raghavan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 and Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.

(2.) Sri Ambadipudi Satyanarayana, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 as well as Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the unofficial respondent No.3, submits that the petitioners have efficacious alternate remedy under Section 18 of the Securitisation & Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short 'the Act of 2002') and no exceptional circumstances are brought to the notice of this Court for entertaining the writ petition bypassing the remedy of appeal. They also submit that since the disputed questions of fact are involved in this matter, as such, this Court cannot entertain this Writ Petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners could not seriously dispute submissions of both the learned counsel for the respondents about the availability of alternate remedy, but however, states that since the property is grossly undervalued and that aspect was not properly considered by the DRT, as such, the present writ petition is filed. He also submits that since the appellate Tribunal is not functioning regularly, at least reasonable time should be granted for approaching the Tribunal, in case, if this Court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner have to avail alternate remedy, the interim order granted by this Court on shall be continued for another period of three months.