The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava and Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj was hearing an appeal on SARFAESI Act proceeding and held that parties aggrieved by proceedings under the SARFAESI Act must first exhaust the statutory remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) before seeking relief from the High Court through a writ petition.
This intra-court appeal involves a writ petitioner challenging an order issued by a learned Single Judge on December 19, 2022. The order disposed of the petition and granted the petitioner the liberty to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). The appellant, claiming to be the wife of the borrower, challenged a bank memo related to the deposit of police costs for the purpose of taking possession of assets under the SARFAESI Act.
The High Court observed that it was established that proceedings under the SARFAESI Act had been initiated against the borrower, and the District Magistrate had already passed an order under Section 14 of the Act. The bank's counsel provided another copy of the notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, the notice under Section 13(4) of the Act, and the order passed by the District Magistrate under Section 14.
Considering these circumstances, the High Court noted that the learned Single Judge had acted in accordance with the settled legal position that the party aggrieved by proceedings under the SARFAESI Act should avail the statutory remedy before the DRT.
The High Court referred to various Supreme Court judgments emphasizing the importance of exhausting alternative statutory remedies before approaching the High Court through a writ petition. The High Court quoted these judgments to support its decision and dismissed the appeal. However, it mentioned that the appellant could file an appropriate application before the DRT for further extension of limitation.
The High Court upheld the order of the learned Single Judge, stating that there was no factual or legal error, and dismissed the appeal.