Maa Katyayni Mercantile Pvt. Ltd Vs Indian Bank (Patna High Court)
Patna High Court held that High Courts should not entertain application under Article 226 of the Constitution, if there is an effective remedy available to the aggrieved persons under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Accordingly, writ held as not maintainable.
Facts- Petitioner is engaged in business through loans from the banks. The respondent bank granted a Cash Credit Facility of Rs. 150 lakhs on 10.12.2008. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the account turned non-performing asset on 31.12.2009. Sai Enterprises had received a work order worth Rs.1,09,98,000 from Vishal Builtech (India) Pvt. Ltd. for supplying stone chips. In response, the petitioner made the required supply, and a cheque dated 15.03.2008 for Rs.1,64,97,000 was issued in its favour by Vishal Builtech. The cheque was submitted to the respondent bank, but no payment was made. The petitioner alleges that the bank refused to honor the cheque based on undisclosed advice from Vishal Builtech, causing significant loss to the petitioner’s business. No reason for non-payment was communicated by the bank.
The present petition is filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal mainly contending that the order was passed violating the provisions of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.
