Ananda Sen, J. - (1.) In this writ application, the petitioners have challenged a part of the order dated 14.06.2016 passed in O.A. Case No. 295 of 2013, whereby the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi has treated the extension of mortgage of petitioners' property for the loan account of M/s. Shree Radha Ballav Horticulture Pvt. Ltd., as claimed by Union Bank of India and has saddled the liability upon the petitioner No. 1. Further, a prayer has been made to direct the Bank to release the property belonging to petitioner No. 1 from the list of mortgaged properties, which is treated to be mortgaged in respect of Loan Account of M/s. Shree Radha Ballav Horticulture Pvt. Ltd. A further prayer has been made orally to stay the auction proceeding in respect of the properties of petitioner No. 1, which is allegedly being undertaken for recovery of the loan amount.
(2.) An application was filed by the Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred as the 'Bank') for recovery of an amount of Rs. 11,46,14,797.49 together with interest and cost against M/s. Shree Radha Ballav Horticulture Pvt. Ltd., Sri. Krishna Kumar Lohia alias Krishna Lohia, Smt. Priyanka Lohia, M/s. Shree Radha Ballav Gas Station, and Sri. Din Dayal Drolia. This recovery application was filed as the said M/s. Shree Radha Ballav Horticulture Pvt. Ltd. failed to repay the loan amount, i.e., the term loan and the cash credit facility. It was the case of the Bank that the properties and assets of M/s. Shree Radha Ballav Horticulture Pvt. Ltd. was hypothecated with the Bank. Not only the assets of M/s. Shree Radha Ballav Horticulture Pvt. Ltd. was hypothecated but the properties of the petitioner herein, i.e., M/s. Shree Radha Ballav Gas Station was also pledged with the Bank as a security for the term loan and cash credit facility, which was availed by M/s. Shree Radha Ballav Horticulture Pvt. Ltd. M/s. Shree Radha Ballav Gas Station is a partnership firm having its own assets. The partners of the said firm are Smt. Priyanka Lohia and Shri Din Dayal Drolia. Said Priyanka Lohia is also a Director of M/s. Shree Radha Ballav Horticulture Pvt. Ltd. As M/s. Shree Radha Ballav Horticulture Pvt. Ltd. failed to liquidate the loan amount, an application was filed by the Bank before the Debts Recovery Tribunal against all the defendants mentioned above for recovery. The said application was numbered as O.A. No. 295 of 2013. The said case was adjudicated and a final order was passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi on 14.06.2016, whereby the original application was allowed in favour of the Bank. It was ordered that the defendants should pay the dues within a period of two months from the date of judgment, failing which the Bank is entitled to sell the mortgaged property and/or sell the personal moveable/immovable property of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3. Recovery certificate was ordered to be issued immediately. The defendants were further restrained/injuncted from transferring, alienating or to encumber their assets. Aggrieved by the said final order passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi the petitioners have filed this writ application challenging the same.
(3.) Before the counsel for the petitioner started arguments on merits, a preliminary objection was raised, by the counsel appearing for the Bank, stating that this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as there is an alternative remedy, by way of a statutory appeal available to the petitioners. He submits that since there is a statutory appellate forum, the petitioners should have approached the Appellate Authority and without exhausting the remedy of appeal, they could not have invoked the power of this Court by filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that whatever may be the objection of the petitioners in relation to the order passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the same can very well be agitated before the appellate forum, which is the best forum to appreciate the issue involved, based upon the records. He submits that to examine the impugned order and to come to the conclusion whether the same is correct or not, the entire Lower Court Records has to be called for and only after going through the evidence led by the Bank and the defendants and going through all the documents, an independent conclusion can be arrived at. It is submitted that for that purpose, it is only the appellate authority, who can appreciate/re-appraise the evidence and come to an independent conclusion. He submits that only on the basis of a few documents, which have been filed along with this writ application, this case cannot be decided. He, thus, submits that since there is an alternative, efficacious remedy available to the petitioner by way of a statutory appeal, this Court should not entertain this writ application.;