Bar contained in Section 14(3) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 does not apply to a remedy provided before Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 | Against an order under Section 14, an aggrieved person has a remedy under Section 17 – Sai Hemaja Aerobricks Pvt. Ltd. and 2 others Vs. State Bank of India and another – Telangana High Court

Hon’ble Telangana High Court held that:

(i) The borrower has the remedy to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
(ii) The contention that the decisions of Supreme Court in Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev (supra), Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (supra), Bajrang Shyamsunder Agarwal (supra), Satyawati Tondon (supra), Hindon Forge Private Limited (supra) and Hemraj Ratnakar Salian (supra) are per incurium cannot be accepted, as it is not open for this Court to hold that a decision of Supreme Court is per incurium as the same would be violative of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
(iii) Section 14(3) of the SARFAESI Act provides that no act of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate or any officer authorised by Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or District Magistrate done in pursuance of this section shall be called in question in any court or before any authority.
(iv) The Debts Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act is neither a Court nor an Authority. Therefore, the bar contained in Section 14(3) of the SARFAESI Act does not apply to a remedy provided before the Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
(v) In view of preceding analysis, it is held that against an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, an aggrieved person has a remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.

Bar contained in Section 14(3) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 does not apply to a remedy provided before Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 | Against an order under Section 14, an aggrieved person has a remedy under Section 17 – Sai Hemaja Aerobricks Pvt. Ltd. and 2 others Vs. State Bank of India and another – Telangana High Court Read Post »