- (1.) THE matter comes up on an application No.21176/12 under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of ex-parte interim order dated 14.11.2011 passed by this Court directing that the respondents including the applicant, ARCIL � an Assets Reconstruction Company under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Act, 2002, be restrained from taking possession of house No.114/92, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur mortgaged against loan account No.LBJAI-00001295343 till further orders.
(2.) HOWEVER, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of. It is not in dispute that the petitioner defaulted in the payment of outstanding on a loan availed by him as per the account maintained by ICICI Bank. It is also not in dispute that the account of the petitioner was declared NPA by the lender � secured creditor ICICI Bank whereafter it was assigned to ARCIL which is an Assets Reconstruction Company under the Act of 2002. A Division of ARCIL "ARMS" vide order dated 01.06.2011 addressed to the counsel for the petitioner (which is admitted) informed him that in the event his client, the petitioner herein, were interested in clearing the outstanding, he should contact with the ARCIL Jaipur office. It was stated that without payment of the outstanding amount in default, it would not be possible to withdraw ongoing process under the Act of 2002 as requested by the counsel on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the respondent ARCIL also informed that ARCIL would be willing to even settle the outstanding loan amount on contact being made. It appears that no efforts were made to either pay the outstanding loan amount in default or even to contact the said assignee of the debt i.e. ARCIL, but instead the petitioner appears to have approached this Court by way of this writ petition agitating grounds which are not germane for the interference of this court in the recovery of debts due to secured creditors and their assignees under the Act of 2002. The grounds agitated in the writ petition are with regard to the alleged discharge of all liability on the loan agreement even while it is the case of the assignee of ICICI's debts i.e. ARCIL that a sum of Rs.7,03,334.44/- is due and outstanding on the loan account against the petitioner. In my considered view the accounting dispute with regard to the loan amount outstanding is not a dispute to be addressed by this Court and if the petitioner is aggrieved in respect thereof, he is always free to approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which is a statutory authority for agitating and resolving issues of loan outstanding between inter alia the assignee of secured creditor and the borrower. In my considered opinion, a borrower in default cannot find refuge before this Court and seek to invoke its extraordinary power without availing the alternative statutory remedy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Ors. [(2010) 8 SCC 110] has held that the writ courts should eschew the exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters covered by specific statutes as such the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and remit the borrower in case of any aggrievement of the action of the Bank and financial institutions to the remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
(3.) FOR the aforesaid reasons, I find no force in the writ petition and the same is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternate remedy. Stay application is also dismissed. The petitioner is, however, free to approach the assignee of the Debt ARCIL to settle the scheme or otherwise take proceedings before the DRT under the Act of 2002 for the vindication of his rights as claimed.;