LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

  • The Madras HC has, in a case titled R.Ganesan vs. M/s ASREC (India) Ltd. dismissed the writ petition and has reiterated the settled legal position that if an alternate remedy is available, a writ petition cannot be filed.
  • As per Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, an appeal can be filed before the Debt Recovery Tribunal within 45 days from the date on which the measures under section 13(4) of the Act are taken.
  • In the instant case, the petitioner had filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the order passed under section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and praying for a writ of certiorari and mandamus to call for records relating to the proceedings of the CJM, to quash the same and direct the respondent to unseal the premises.
  • Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act empowers the CMM of DM to assist the secured creditor to take possession of the secured asset.
  • The HC, relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble SC in the cases of Authorized Officer, State bank of Travancore and anr vs. Matthew KC and Agarwal Tracom Private Limited vs. PNB and ors. held that the aggrieved parties cannot challenge the proceedings taking place under the SARFAESI Act by way of a writ petition directly without exhausting the remedy of appeal available to them under the Act itself.
  • Thus the Court, while dismissing the petition, said that the petitioner is free to challenge the order before the Debt Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"

Tags :

  Views  32  Report

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query