In
its recent Judgment[1],
a Division Bench of the Madras High Court has pointed out that the Enforcement
of Security Interest and Recovery of Debts Laws and Miscellaneous Provisions
(Amendment) Act, 2016 (44 of 2016), has provided for an effective and
alternative remedy to a person, claiming to be a tenant or has lease hold
rights, on the secured asset by approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The
Amendment has vested upon the DRTs the jurisdiction to examine whether the
lease or tenancy and other parameters, mentioned in Section 4A of the Amended
Act and to pass such orders, as deems fit, in accordance with the provisions of
Securitisation and Reconstructions of Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Security Interest Act, 2002.
Noting
the observation of the Apex Court in Union Bank of India v Satyavati Tandon that in cases relating to recovery of the dues of banks, financial
institutions and secured creditors, stay granted by the High Court would have
serious adverse impact on the financial health of such bodies/institutions,
which ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation, the Division
Bench held that exercise of writ jurisdiction is extraordinary, only in the
absence of alternate and efficacious remedy and when there is an efficacious
and alternate remedy under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks
and Financial Institutions Act or Securitisation And Reconstructions of
Financial Assets Act, 2002, as the case may be, a writ petition seeking remedy
against SARFAESI action is not maintainable.
No comments:
Post a Comment