- (1.) Heard Shri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Amir Khan, learned counsel for the respondents-Bank.
(2.) The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking quashing of the notice dated 6.12.2018 issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.
(3.) It is not disputed between the parties that the petitioners have a remedy by way of filing an appeal under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal against the proceedings under Section 13 (4) of the Act. Therefore, no ground for interference is made out particularly, in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India vs. Satyawati Tandon and others, reported in, 2010 8 SCC 110 wherein the Court in paragraph 42 & 43 has held as under : "42. There is another reason why the impugned order should be set aside. If Respondent 1 had any tangible grievance against the notice issued under Section 13(4) or action taken under Section 14, then she could have availed remedy by filing an application under Section 17(1). The expression "any person" used in Section 17(1) is of wide import. It takes within its fold, not only the borrower but also the guarantor or any other person who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Section 14. Both, the Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal are empowered to pas interim orders under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matters within a fixed time schedule. It is thus evident that the remedies available to an aggrieved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective. 43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi- judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the High Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute.";