Related Posts
Sadashiv Prasad Singh Vs. Harendar Singh & Ors. – Supreme Court
Username Password Remember Me …
In view of the availability of the alternative statutory remedy available by way of proceedings/appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 in which the e-auction notice was under challenge – G. Vikram Kumar Vs. State Bank of Hyderabad & Ors. – Supreme Court
May 4, 2023
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in view of the availability of the alternative statutory remedy available by way of proceedings/appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in which the e-¬auction notice was under challenge. Therefore, the High Court has committed a very serious error in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the e-¬auction notice issued by the Bank in exercise of power under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The aforesaid facts were pointed out before the High Court and despite the same the High Court has allowed the writ petition which is not sustainable at all. The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that even otherwise it is very debatable whether Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act shall be applicable in favour of a person who is only an agreement to sale holder or Section 13(8) of the SARFAESI Act shall be applicable only in case of the borrower who is ready and willing to pay the entire debt. In the present case the borrower failed to get any relief from the DRT. The borrower did not apply and/or invoke Section 13(8) and did not agree to clear the entire dues. Therefore, also the High Court has materially erred in allowing the writ petition.