Jayantkumar Kalubhai Sagar vs. Shriram Housing Finance LTD.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable. It found substance in the submission made by the learned advocate for the respondent that an alternative remedy is available to the petitioners. The Court extensively relied on various Supreme Court judgments, including Authorized Officer, State Bank of Trivancore vs. K.C. Mehta, Satyawati Tandon, and Ikbal, which consistently hold that High Courts should ordinarily not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 when an effective statutory remedy is available. The Court reiterated that legislations like the SARFAESI Act are codes in themselves, providing comprehensive procedures and quasi-judicial bodies for redressal. Therefore, petitioners must exhaust remedies under the relevant statute before approaching the High Court. While dismissing the petition on maintainability grounds, the Court, on humanitarian grounds, requested the bank not to proceed for 15 days from the date of the order.

Facts

The petitioners, Jayantkumar Kalubhai Sagar and others, availed a financial facility from respondent No. 1, Shriram Housing Finance Ltd. Initially, they paid installments regularly but later faced financial difficulties due to demonetization and GST implementation, leading to their account being declared NPA. Respondent No. 2 issued a notice under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, demanding payment of Rs. 1,76,08,794/. The petitioners sought directions to accept delayed installments and to restrain the respondent from taking possession of their property. The petition was filed before the High Court, which questioned its maintainability.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable when an efficacious alternative remedy is available under the SARFAESI Act, 2002? Petitioner's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioners regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. Revenue/State's contention: Respondent No. 1 contended that the petition is not maintainable as an alternative remedy is available under the law. The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments in Authorized Officer, State Bank of Trivancore vs. K.C. Mehta, Punjab National Bank vs. O.C. Krishnan, Satyawati Tandon, Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev, Ikbal, and Punjab National Bank and another vs. Imperial Gift House, which emphasize that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions when statutory remedies are available, particularly in matters of recovery of dues by financial institutions.