Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Proceedings under Section 13(4). The remedies are; appeal under Section 17 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, followed by appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18. The High Court can NOT entertain the writ petition in view of the adequate alternate statutory remedies available. Interim order of the High Court set aside. Supreme Court of India. 30 January 2018

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 Proceedings under Section 13(4).  The remedies are; appeal under Section 17 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, followed by appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18. The High Court can NOT entertain the writ petition in view of the adequate alternate statutory remedies available. Interim order of the High Court set aside. Supreme Court of India. 30 January 2018

Authorised Officer, State Bank of Travancore & anr vs Mathew K.C.
Civil Appeal 1281 of 2018
Rohinton Fali Nariman-J
Navin Sinha-J

Link to Judgment: http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/supremecourt/2015/25156/25156_2015_Judgement_30-Jan-2018.pdf

HELD: 4. The SARFAESI Act is a complete code by itself, providing for expeditious recovery of dues arising out of loans granted by financial institutions, the remedy of appeal by the aggrieved under Section 17 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, followed by a right to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 18. The High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition in view of the adequate alternate statutory remedies available to the Respondent. The interim order was passed on the very first date, without an opportunity to the Appellant to file a reply. Reliance was placed on United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others, 2010 (8) SCC 110, and General Manager, Sri Siddeshwara Cooperative Bank Limited and another vs. Ikbal and others, 2013 (10) SCC 83. The writ petition ought to have been dismissed at the threshold on the ground of maintainability. The Division Bench erred in declining to interfere with the same.

Compiled by
S.Basavaraj
Daksha Legal.