Petitioners Must Exhaust DRT Remedy Before Challenging Sec. 14 Order | Writ Challenging Order Was to Be Dismissed | HC

Case Details: Rajesh Agrawal v. State of Madhya Pradesh - [2024] 158 taxmann.com 652 (Madhya Pradesh)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari & Devnarayan Mishra, JJ.
  • Ravindra Martand Deshpande, Adv. for the Appellant.
  • Bhuwan Gautam, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the loan was obtained by the petitioner from the respondent bank. In order to secure said loan, the petitioner mortgaged his subject immovable property.

Loan having remained unpaid, the bank had invoked provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 and had filed an application under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to take possession of secured assets, which was allowed by the District Collector.

The Petitioner filed an instant writ alleging that before passing the impugned order, the District Collector did not provide the opportunity of hearing to him as well as the borrowed amount was below the ceiling limit to attract recovery actions under provisions of the 2002 Act and therefore, actions of respondent was against provisions of law.

It was an admitted position that an order under Section 14 had been passed by the Additional Collector and now petitioners being borrowers had an alternative remedy to approach DRT by filing an appropriate application which had not been filed.

High Court Held

Thus, the High Court held that the instant writ challenging the execution of the order under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was to be dismissed as all points raised in the writ could very well be raised before DRT.

List of Cases Reviewed

• • Kalabharti Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and Others (2010) 9 SCC 437 (para 10)
  • South Indian Bank Ltd. & Ors. v. Naveen Mathew Philip & Anr. etc [2023 Livelaw (SC) 320 (para 11) followed.