Mohammad Rafiq, J. - (1.) MATTER has come up for orders on application No. 48018 dated 01.12.2010 filed by Petitioners for extension of time period for depositing amount of Rupees five lac.
(2.) THIS Court vide order dated 03.11.2010 granted one months time to Petitioners to deposit the said amount of five lac rupees. Even though the Petitioners have filed application for extension of time but till date he has not deposited a single penny. The conduct of Petitioners is thus not bona -fide. The application is therefore rejected and the writ petition is finally heard. Petitioners were sanctioned home loan by Respondent bank on mortgage of their immovable property in question as security against repayment thereof. Petitioners regularly paid the installments till 10.08.2008 but thereafter they could not manage to pay certain monthly installments and therefore the Respondent Bank declared their loan account as non -performing assets on 13.01.2009 and sold the secured financial asset of Petitioners to Asset Reconstruction Company India Limited. The said company issued notice to Petitioners on 10.01.2010 to repay amount of Rs. 31,55,259.88. Petitioners gave representation to Respondent Company asking for rescheduling payment of their debts under Section 13(3A) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 but without considering the same the Respondent company filed application under Section 14 of the said Act of 2002 before the District Magistrate and directly proceeded to take possession of the secured financial asset of Petitioners. The District Magistrate vide order dated 25.08.2010 ordered in favour of Respondent company to take possession of Petitioner's secured assets with assistance of police. Hence this writ petition.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for Respondent relied on judgment of Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon - : 2010 (8) SCC 110, and submitted that this writ petition is not maintainable, wherein the Supreme Court held as under: ...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 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, 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. In view of the judgment of Supreme Court supra, writ petition is not maintainable and it is accordingly dismissed.;