M/s.Badma Tool Manufacturers Pvt.Ltd. v. Indian Bank, Villivakkam Branch

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 16.09.2010CORAM :THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE R.BANUMATHIandTHE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRANWrit Petition No.19621 of 2010and M.P.No.1 of 2010M/s.Badma Tool Manufacturers Pvt.Ltd.,33,III Cross StreetBalaji NagarAmbattur O.T.,Chennai – 600 053. ....PetitionerVs.1.Indian Bank, Villivakkam BranchChennai – 600 049.2.The Chief Manager Asset Recovery Management Branch-II 4th Floor, No.55, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution ofIndia seeking for the relief of issuance of writ of declaration todeclare that the award passed by the Lok Adalat on 28.8.2004 isbinding on the respondent and any action by the bank taken inderogation of the Legal Services Authorities Act is not valid andbinding under any other law in force including SARFAESI Act. For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.AmarnathFor Respondents : Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia for RR1 and 2 for M/s.Aiyar & DoliaORDERR.BANUMATHI,J.This Writ Petition has been filed to declare that the awardpassed by the Lok Adalat on 28.8.2004 is binding on the Respondentand any action taken by the Bank in derogation of Legal ServicesAuthorities Act is not valid and binding under any law in forceincluding the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assetsand Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, "SARFAESI https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Act").2. The Writ Petitioner is a Private Limited company. In theyear 1990, for its business purpose, Petitioner has availed variousfinancial facilities – (i) open cash credit facility ofRs.1,30,000/-, (ii) medium term loan to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/-and (iii) supply bills purchased facility of Rs.2,80,000/-. The WritPetitioner failed to pay the amounts and committed default inrepaying the amount due. The loan accounts have been classified asNon-Performing Asset since 31.3.1997. Originally, the claim was filedin 1998 in O.A.No.1706 of 1998 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I,Chennai, which was later transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal-II,Chennai in O.A.No.1405 of 2001. Debt Recovery Tribunal-II passed theorder on 1.4.2002 in O.A.No.1405 of 2001 directing the Petitioner topay a sum of Rs.1,07,16,917.72 towards the loan availed from theRespondent Bank and consequently the Recovery Certificate was issued.Subsequently, the matter was considered by the Lok Adalat and byconsent of both parties, Award was passed for a sum ofRs.75,00,000/-, whereunder the Petitioner agreed to pay Rs.10 lakhson 1.9.2004, Rs.10 lakhs on or before 10.9.2004 and the balanceamount of Rs.55 lakhs on or before 31.12.2004 with PLR simpleinterest from 28.8.2004 till the date of full and final payment.Further the Award contained the conditional clause to the effect thatin case of default in the payment of the said amounts as per thecompromise, the Respondent bank is entitled to recover the entireamount as prayed for in the O.A. On the basis of the award of LokAdalat, final order was passed in O.A.No.1405 of 2001 on 14.10.2004.The Petitioner paid only Rs.10 lakhs and failed to comply with theterms of the award passed in the Lok Adalat. Petitioner filedapplications - I.A.Nos.438 and 439 of 1996 on 4.9.2006 in the DebtRecovery Tribunal (in short, "DRT") to direct the Respondent bank toextend time for payment of the said amount and also to stay furtherproceedings in the recovery certificate No.99/2002. Application forextension of time was dismissed by DRT.3. The Petitioner filed appeal in M.A.No.148 of 2007 on the fileof DRAT and on the date of hearing, on 29.8.2007, the counsel for thePetitioner was not present and hence the said appeal was dismissedand DRT was directed to proceed with the matter in accordance withlaw. Thereafter, the Petitioner has filed Petition – I.N.No.668 of2007 in M.A.No.148 of 2007 to review the order passed by the DRAT.The said Review Application - I.N.No.668 of 2007 was dismissed on9.1.2008. The said order dismissing the Review Application waschallenged in W.P.No.3738 of 2008. Pointing out that the Petitionerdid not choose to pay the remaining amount the said writ petition wasdismissed on 13.2.2008.4. Thereafter the 3rd Defendant in O.A.No.1405 of 2001 –P.Parameswari filed applications – I.A.Nos.410 to 413 of 2008 inO.A.No.645 of 2007 before the DRT-III, Chennai (on transfer of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O.A.No.1405 of 2001 from DRT-II, Chennai to DRT-III, Chennai, O.A.was re-numbered as O.A.No.645 of 2007) to set aside the final orderpassed on 14.10.2004 on the basis of the award of Lok Adalat and todeclare that the settlement arrived between the Bank and thePetitioner will not be binding on her (as she was exparte in theproceedings) and praying to release her properties. The saidapplications were allowed on 20.4.2009 inter alia directing the 3rdDefendant - Parameswari to pay Rs.32,16,917.72ps and liberty wasgiven to the Bank to transfer the amount of Rs.65 lakhs lying in 'nolien account' to the loan account of the defendants immediately andappropriate the same. It was further ordered that on compliance ofthe conditions, the debt recovery certificate shall be deemed to befully satisfied and further recovery proceedings shall stand closedinsofar as 3rd defendant – Parameswari. But the 3rd Defendant did notcomply with the order and the Petition was dismissed for non-paymentof the amount. Therefore, the decree and the Lok Adalat order hadbecome final. Thereafter the Bank issued notice under Section 13(2)on 19.11.2009 calling upon the Petitioner to pay a sum ofRs.7,22,40,091/-. In response to 13(2) notice, the Petitioner hassent reply on 20.1.2010 and further a rejoinder. The Bank has sentits reply on 1.2.2010 stating that the borrower has not complied withthe award of Lok Adalat dated 28.8.2004 and the final order passed inO.A.No.1405 of 2001 on the basis of the award of Lok Adalat.Possession notice was issued on 5.5.2010 and paper publication waseffected on 8.5.2010. At that stage, Petitioner has filed this writpetition seeking for declaration that the award passed by the LokAdalat on 28.8.2004 is binding on the Respondent Bank. 5. Notice was served upon the Respondent Bank and the Bank isrepresented by Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia. With the consent of the counsel forthe Petitioner and the Respondent, at the stage of admission, themain Writ Petition itself was taken up for final hearing. Argument ofboth was heard at length.6. Learned counsel for Petitioner Mr.Amarnath inter alia raisedthe following submissions:●As per the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act,the award passed by the Lok Adalat on 28.8.2004 has becomefinal and as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in thecase of P.T.Thomas Vs.Thomas Job (2005) 6 SCC 478, the samecannot be set aside or modified and notice under Section13(4) of the SARFAESI Act is illegal and against the spiritof Legal Services Authorities Act. ●Non-compliance of Section 13(3A) of SARFAESI Act vitiatesthe proceedings as there was a delay in sending a reply bythe Bank to the objections given by the Petitioner fornotice under Section 13(2). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ● When the proceedings was taken under the Recovery of Debtsdue to Banks and Financial Institutions Act , (in short,"DRT Act") and an award was also passed in the Lok Adalat,the provisions of SARFAESI Act cannot be resorted to sixyears thereafter.●Claim of the Bank is barred by limitation.7. Learned counsel for the Respondent Mr.Jayesh B.Doliasubmitted that as per the decision of TRANSCORE VS. UNION OF INDIAKAND ANOTHER, (2008) 1 SCC 125, Bank is at liberty to proceed eitherunder DRT Act or SARFAESI Act or under both. Drawing our attention tothe various proceedings, learned counsel for the Respondent Banksubmitted that the Petitioner has filed number of applications andalso earlier writ petition and having failed in the earlier attempts,he has filed this writ petition. Drawing our attention to the replyof Respondent Bank dated 1.2.2010, learned counsel for the RespondentBank has submitted that Section 13(3A) has been complied with.Drawing our attention to UNITED BANK OF INDIA VS. SATYAWATI TONDONAND OTHERS, (2010) BC 495 (SC), learned counsel for the RespondentBank submitted that when a statutory forum is created by law forredressal of grievance the writ petition should not be entertainedignoring the statutory dispensation. 8. In the recovery proceedings initiated by the RecoveryOfficer, Recovery Certificate was issued by the DRT in O.A.No.1405 of2001 for recovery of Rs.2,20,18,891.72ps. Thereafter the matter wasreferred to Lok Adalat and Lok Adalat passed the award on 28.8.2004which reads as under:"... Both the parties agreed for a sum of Rs.75,00,000/-(Rupees Seventy five Lakhs only). The Joint memo is filed andrecorded as per the terms of compromise. The Borrower shall payRs.10 Lakhs immediately, i.e., on or before 1.9.2004, anothersum Rs.10,00,000/- by 10th September, 2004. The Balance amountof Rs.55,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty five Lakhs only) shall be paidon or before 31.12.2004 with PLR simple interest from 28.8.2004till the date of full and final payment of reducing balance. Onpayment of the entire amount as per this award, the Bank shallrelease all the properties secured with the Bank as scheduledhereunder .......In case of any default in payment of the amount as per thecompromise, the bank is entitled to recover the entire amountas prayed in O.A.No.1405/2001."9. After passing of the award, Petitioner paid Rs.10 Lakhs on30.8.2004. Thereafter the Petitioner failed to pay the balance amount https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of Rs.65 lakhs in two instalments within the time stipulated in theaward. Only in the year 2006, the Petitioner filed petitions –I.A.Nos.438 and 439 of 2006 on 4.9.2006 seeking for extension of timeto pay the balance amount and for stay of proceedings in RecoveryCertificate No.99 of 2002 and the same were dismissed by DRT. 10. The contention of the learned counsel for Petitioner isthat the award passed by the Lok Adalat has become final and noappeal lies against the award and therefore notice issued underSection 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act is illegal. It was contended thatunder Section 22-E of the Legal Services Authorities Act, any awardpassed by the Lok Adalat is binding on all parties and the sameshall not be called in question in any Original Suit and that itshould be executed as if it is a decree of the civil Court. It wasfurther submitted that as per Section 25 of the Legal ServicesAuthorities Act, the provisions of the Act shall have overridingeffect notwithstanding anything inconsistent with any other law forthe time being in force. Placing reliance upon P.T.Thomas Vs.ThomasJob (2005) 6 SCC 478, it was contended by the learned counsel for thePetitioner that the award of Lok Adalat is final and permanent andthe same is an ending to the litigation among the parties and whileso issuance of notice under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act is illegaland against the spirit and scope of Legal Services Authorities Act. 11. Under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act,every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be decree of aCivil court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at,by a Lok Adalat, the Court-fee paid in such case shall be refundedin the manner provided under the Court Fees Act. Section 21(2) of theAct gives finality to the decision of the Lok Adalat and no appealshall lie to any Court against the award passed by the Lok Adalat. 12. It is no doubt true that the award passed by the Lok Adalatis binding between all parties to the case. As pointed out earlier,even in the award, it is made clear that in case of any default inpayment of the amount as per the compromise the Bank is entitled torecover the entire amount as prayed in O.A.No.1405 of 2001. When thePetitioner has not complied with the terms of the award by paying theamount within the stipulated time, as per the terms of the award, theRespondent Bank is at liberty to recover the entire amount as prayedin O.A.No.1405 of 2001. Further it would also mean as per the LokAdalat decree that on default the claim amount has become the decreeamount.13. As pointed out earlier, the Petitioner has paid Rs.10 lakhson 30.8.2004. The balance remaining instalments of another Rs.10lakhs was payable by 10.9.2004 and the balance amount of Rs.55 lakhswas payable on or before 31.12.2004. Even though the Petitioner hasnot deposited the amount within the stipulated time it is pertinentto note that the Petitioner has not filed any application before the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ DRT seeking for extension of time. Nearly two years after the date ofexpiry of time granted by the Lok Adalat i.e., on 4.9.1996Petitioner has filed applications I.A.Nos.438 and 439 of 2006seeking for extension of time and for stay of further proceedings inthe recovery certificate No.99/2002, which were dismissed by the DRT. 14. The Petitioner has filed appeal in M.A.No.148 of 2007 beforethe Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (in short, "DRAT") and when thematter was posted for final hearing on 29.8.2007 before the DRAT thePetitioner was not present and hence upon hearing the counsel forRespondent Bank, the Appeal – M.A.No.148 of 2007 was dismissed andDRT was directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.The Petitioner has also filed a review application in I.N.No.668 of2007 and the same also came to be dismissed on 9.1.2008, which againwas challenged before this Court in W.P.No.3738 of 2008. In the saidwrit petition, the same points were raised contending that the awardpassed by the Lok Adalat has become final and binding between theparties. Pointing out that the terms of the award passed by the LokAdalat was not complied with, A Division Bench of this Court hasdismissed the said writ petition on 13.2.2008. Having failed tocomply with the terms of the award, it is not open to the Petitionerto seek for a declaration that the award passed by the Lok Adalat on28.8.2004 is still binding between the parties notwithstanding thedefault of the writ Petitioner.15. Learned counsel for Petitioner nextly contended that it ismandatory to consider the reply and there has been total non-compliance of Section 13(3A) and therefore the entire proceedings isvitiated. It was further submitted that possession notice could beissued by the Bank only after communication of non-acceptance ofobjections and without so communicating and without complying themandatory provisions of Section 13(3A), possession notice is illegal.In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon anunreported judgment of the Karnataka High Court in W.P.No.9694 of2005 (GM-RES) (MRS. SUNANDA KUMARI AND ANOTEHR VS. STANDARD CHARTEREDBANK) DATED 23.3.2006. Observing that the secured creditor isstatutorily bound to consider the borrower's objection, the KarnatakaHigh Court in the said judgment held as under:"Sub-section (3A) casts a duty on the secured creditor toconsider the representation made or objection raised by theborrower and if the secured creditor comes to the conclusionthat such representation or objection is not acceptable ortenable, he is bound to communicate to the borrower the reasonsfor non-acceptance within one week of receipt of therepresentation or objection. Thus, sub-section (3A) confers onthe borrower a right to know the reasons for the non-acceptanceof his representation or objection by the secured creditor.Hence the secured creditor is statutorily bound to consider theborrower's representation or objection and if the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ representation or objection is not tenable or acceptable, he isalso bound to communicate the reasons for such non-acceptance."16. Section 13(3A) was inserted after the judgment of theSupreme Court in Mardia Chemicals vs. Union of India (2004) 3 SCC311. Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act is mandatory and omission toconsider representation is fatal. If the borrower makes anyrepresentation or raised any objection, the secured creditor shallconsider such representation or objection and if the secured creditorcomes to the conclusion that such representation or objection is notacceptable or tenable, secured creditor shall communicate within oneweek of receipt of such representation or objection the reasons fornon-acceptance of the representation or objection of the borrower. 17. There is no force in the contention of the learned counselfor the Petitioner that Section 13(3A) has not been complied with. Aspointed out earlier, Section 13(2) notice was issued on 19.11.2009,which was received by the borrower on 24.11.2009. Nearly two monthsafter receipt of the notice, the borrower/writ Petitioner sent thereply on 20.1.2010. Even though notice by R.P.A.D. was sent on20.1.2010, it is not known when it was received by the Bank. The Bankhas sent its reply on 1.2.2010. In between, there were two week endholidays and also a public holiday i.e., on 26.1.2010. Therefore, itcannot be contended that the reply sent on 1.2.2010 is beyondstatutory time of one week and that there was non-compliance ofSection 13(3A). 18. In Mardia Chemicals vs. Union of India (2004) 3 SCC 311,the Apex Court stated that the reasons for not accepting theobjections of borrower must be communicated to the borrower and thereasons so communicated shall only be for the purpose of theinformation/knowledge of the borrower without giving rise to anyright to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of theAct, at this stage. The Hon'ble Supreme Court explained thatcommunication of reasons not to accept the objections of the borroweris for the purpose of knowledge which would be a step towards hisright to know as to why his objections have not been accepted by thesecured creditor, who intends to resort to harsh steps of taking overthe management/business. Thus, the basic object of Section 13(3A) isto ensure the element of transparency and fair play in theimplementation of the provisions of SARFAESI Act. In our consideredview, there is no violation of the mandatory provision of Section 13(3A). 19. The Debt Recovery Certificate issued in D.R.C.No.99 of 2002dated 4.7.2002 culminated in the award passed by the Lok Adalat on28.8.2004. On the basis of the award of Lok Adalat, DRT-II passedthe final order in O.A.No.1405/2001 on 14.10.2004. Learned counselfor Petitioner contended that in the proceedings initiated under DRTAct, when final order was passed in O.A.No.1405 of 2001 on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

14.10.2004, nearly six years thereafter the Bank was not justified ininvoking the provisions of SARFAESI Act and issuance of notice underSection 13(2) is per se illegal. 20. The issue as to whether the bank could resort to exerciseits rights under the NPA Act even after initiating a proceeding underthe DRT Act is no longer res integra after the judgment of theSupreme Court in the case of Transcore v. Union of India and another(2008) 1 SCC 125. In paragraph 69 of the judgment, the Apex Courtobserved as follows:"69. For the above reasons, we hold that withdrawal ofthe OA pending before DRT under the DRT Act is not aprecondition for taking recourse to the NPA Act. It is forthe bank/FI to exercise its discretion as to cases in whichit may apply for leave and in cases where they may not applyfor leave to withdraw. We do not wish to spell out thosecircumstances because the said first proviso to Section 19(1)is an enabling provision, which provision may deal withmyriad circumstances which we do not wish to spell outherein."21. From the Transcore judgment (supra) it is clear that theobject behind introducing the first proviso and the third proviso tosection 19(1) of the DRT Act was to align the provisions of DRT Act,the NPA Act and Order 23 CPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court in clear andcategorical terms permitted the bank to invoke its remedies under theNPA Act, 2002, even after having elected to seek remedy in terms ofthe DRT Act, 1993, for realising the secured assets withoutwithdrawing or abandoning the O.A. and the proceedings thereon filedbefore the DRT under the DRT Act. 22. Learned counsel for Petitioner nextly contended that theloan accounts have been classified as non-performing asset (NPA)since 31.3.1997 and the period prescribed under Article 62 of theLimitation Act is 12 years and Section 13(2) notice issued on19.11.2009 is beyond the period of limitation and the same is barredby time. The learned counsel contended that as per Section 36 ofSARFAESI Act, provisions of the Limitation Act is applicable toactions provided under the Act. It was further contended that Article62 of the Limitation Act prescribes the limitation for enforcing theright of a mortgagee where immovable properties are offered ascollateral security by way of mortgage and the period prescribedunder Article 62 is 12 years and the notice issued under Section 13(2) (19.11.2009) is clearly barred by limitation and such action isprohibited under Section 36 of the SARFAESI Act. 23. The contention that the notice issued under Section 13(2) on19.11.2009 is barred by limitation cannot be countenanced. TheVarious dates and events would show that the matter was pending at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ one stage or other mainly at the instance of the writ Petitioner. Itis no doubt true that the loan account was classified as NPA since31.3.1997. O.A.No.1706 of 1998 was filed by the Bank before the DRT-Iand the same was transferred to DRT-II and re-numbered as O.A.No.1405of 2001 and the O.A was allowed on 1.4.2002. In D.R.C.No.99 of 2002,Debt Recovery Certificate was issued on 4.7.2002. Thereafter thematter was referred to Lok Adalat and award was passed on 28.8.2004.On the basis of Award passed in Lok Adalat, an order was passed bythe Debt Recovery Tribunal in O.A.No.1405 of 2001 on 14.10.2004. 24. As per Section 2(ha) of the SARFAESI Act, "debt" shall havethe meaning assigned to it in clause (g) of Section 2 of the Recoveryof Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. Section 2(g) of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Actwould cover any liability including a decree or order of any civilCourt. Section 2(g) reads as under:""debt" means any liability (inclusive of interest) whichis alleged as due from any person by a bank or a financialinstitution or by a consortium of banks or financialinstitutions during the course of any business activityundertaken by the bank or the financial institution or theconsortium under any law for the time being in force, in cashor otherwise, whether secured or unsecured, or whether payableunder a decree or order of any civil court or otherwise andsubsisting on, and legally recoverable on, the date of theapplication." 25. Under Section 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, everyaward of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a CivilCourt. Where any borrower, who is under the liability to a securedcreditor, makes any default in repayment of a secured debt and hisaccount in respect of debt is classified by the secured debtor as anon-performing asset, the secured creditor shall be entitled toexercise all or any of the rights under section 13(4). In ourconsidered view, award passed by the Lok Adalat and the final orderpassed by DRT on 14.10.2004 is a debt within the meaning of Section 2(ha) of the SARFAESI Act and Bank was well within its rights inissuing notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act. The Petitionercannot contend that the limitation starts from 31.3.1997 on whichdate the loan accounts have been classified as non-performing asset. 26. It is also pertinent to note that the matter has beenpending at one stage or other only because of number of applicationsfiled by the Petitioner. As pointed out earlier, without complyingwith the terms of the award, the Petitioner filed petitions forextension of time only two years after the date of expiry of timegranted in the Lok Adalat i.e., on 4.9.2006 which came to bedismissed. In the appeal filed before the DRAT – M.A.No.148 of 2007,the Petitioner did not appear and therefore the same was dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thereafter the review application in I.N.No.668 of 2007 also came tobe dismissed on 9.1.2008 which again was successfully challenged inW.P.No.3738 of 2008. Thereafter the 3rd Defendant had also filedapplications – I.A.Nos.410 to 413 of 2008 in O.A.No.645 of 2007 fordeclaration that the settlement arrived at between the 1st RespondentBank and the 2nd Respondent – writ Petitioner is not binding on herand for other reliefs, which were disposed by the DRT-III on24.2.2009. In our considered view, by filing one application or theother the writ Petitioner was delaying the steps to be taken by theBank and while so it is not open to the Petitioner to contend thatSection 13(2) notice issued by the Bank on 19.11.2009 is barred bylimitation.27. Having unsuccessfully fought out number of applications, thePetitioner has unjustifiably invoked Article 226 to declare that theaward passed by the Lok Adalat on 28.8.2004 is binding on theRespondent Bank. Expressing concern over invoking of Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India and observing that Article 226 is notmeant to short circuit or circumvent the statutory proceedings, inUNITED BANK OF INDIA VS. SATYAWATI TONDON AND OTHERS, (2010) BC 495(SC), the Supreme Court held as under: "21. The views expressed in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd.v. State of Orissa (1983) 2 SCC 433) were echoed in AssistantCollector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar, West Bengal v.Dunlop India Ltd., and Others, (1985) 1 SCC 260 in thefollowing words:"Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit orcircumvent statutory procedures. It is only wherestatutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet thedemands of extraordinary situations, as for instancewhere the very vires of the statute is in question orwhere private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixedup and the prevention of public injury and thevindication of public justice require it that recoursemay be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But thenthe Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypassthe alternative remedy provided by statute. Surelymatters involving the revenue where statutory remediesare available are not such matters. We can also takejudicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of thepetitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filedsolely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders andthereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or theother. The practice certainly needs to be stronglydiscouraged."22. In Punjab National Bank v. O.C.Krishnan and Others,(2001) 6 SCC 569, this Court considered the question whether a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was maintainableagainst an order passed by the Tribunal under Section 19 of theDRT Act and observed: "5. In our opinion, the order which was passed by theTribunal directing sale of mortgaged property wasappealable under Section 20 of the Recovery of DebtsDue to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (forshort “the Act”). The High Court ought not to haveexercised its jurisdiction under Article 227 in view ofthe provision for alternative remedy contained in theAct. We do not propose to go into the correctness ofthe decision of the High Court and whether the orderpassed by the Tribunal was correct or not has to bedecided before an appropriate forum.6. The Act has been enacted with a view to providea special procedure for recovery of debts due to thebanks and the financial institutions. There is ahierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filingof an appeal under Section 20 and this fast-trackprocedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either bytaking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit,which is expressly barred. Even though a provisionunder an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction ofthe court under Articles 226 and 227 of theConstitution, nevertheless, when there is analternative remedy available, judicial prudence demandsthat the Court refrains from exercising itsjurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions.This was a case where the High Court should not haveentertained the petition under Article 227 of theConstitution and should have directed the respondent totake recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by theAct.27. It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeatedpronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignorethe availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act andSARFAESI Act and exercise discretion under Article 226 forpassing orders which have serious adverse impact on the rightof Banks and other financial institutions to recover theirdues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts willexercise their discretion in such mattes with greater caution,care and circumspection."28. We do not find any illegality in the action taken by therespondent/Bank in invoking the provisions of Section 13(2) and 13(4)of SARFAESI Act. Having filed number of applications, the Petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is not at all justified in invoking Article 226 of the Constitutionof India. None of the points urged by the Petitioner merit anyacceptance and the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable tobe dismissed.29. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However,there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connectedmiscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar//true copy//Sub Asst.Registrar Copy to:1. Indian Bank, Villivakkam BranchChennai – 600 049. 2.The Chief Manager Asset Recovery Management Branch-II 4th Floor, No.55, Ethiraj Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.1 cc to Mr.R.Sivakumar, Advocate, Sr.No.680851 cc to Mr.S.N.Amarnath, Advocate, Sr.No.68089 Order in W.P.No.19621 of 2010NSM {CO}TP/28.9.2010.