Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4192 of 2014 Date of Decision: 1.7.2014 M/s Balaji Woollen ....Petitioner Versus Authorised Officer, Bank of Maharashtra and other ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present : Mr.Rohit Suri, Advocate for the petitioner 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?.
2.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?.RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
(Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 227 of the Constitution against the impugned order dated 3.6.2014, passed by the Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Chandigarh (for short “the DRT”.).The petitioner- firm wants to settle the matter with the Bank and while that process is not concluded nor has materialized, the DRT has declined the interim prayer for stay of the proceedings under SARFAESI Act.
The impugned order is appealable before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
Therefore, there is a wholesome remedy available to the petitioner to ventilate its grievance, if any, against the impugned order before the appropriate Forum.
In such circumstances, this Court would not intervene in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution in the face of availability of an alternative Khan Md.Firoz remedy.
The petitioner is, therefore, relegated to its statutory remedy.
2014.07.04 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab and haryana high court chandigarh CR No.4192 of 2014 :2: At this stage, Mr.Suri submits that if this Court is reluctant to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution, then its order should not stand in the way of invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
It is not for this Court to allow or reject such a prayer in the present proceedings.
Disposed of accordingly.
(RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE17.2014 MFK Khan Md.Firoz 2014.07.04 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document punjab and haryana high court chandigarh