Sri Kucharlapati Anjaneya Vara Prasad Satyanarayana Raju v. Idbi Bank Ltd
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER Writ Petition No.2780 of 2017 ORDER: {Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan} The petitioners herein allege that the 4th respondent had played fraud on them, and had surreptitiously obtained their signatures on documents to show them as sureties for the loans granted by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of respondents 5 to 16. It is the petitioners' case that, while they had approached the 4th respondent for being extended a loan, the 4th respondent had obtained their signatures on several documents assuring them that the loan would be given and, instead of doing so, he had utilised the documents, belonging to the petitioners, to create a mortgage for the loans granted in favour of respondent 5 to 16. They are aggrieved by the action of respondents 1 and 2 in taking action against them under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short "the SARFAESI Act").
Dr.P.B.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that, while the SARFAESI Act provides a remedy of an appeal under Section 17 thereof, against the order passed under Section 13(4), the question whether fraud had been committed are not matters which the Debt Recovery Tribunal would examine and, in such circumstances, the petitioners have no other alternative except to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court.
It would be wholly inappropriate for us to entertain this writ petition as, in judicial review proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not examine disputed questions of fact as to whether fraud has been played against the petitioners and
their signatures were surreptitiously obtained or whether documents furnished by them were surreptitiously used for creation of a mortgage for the loans granted by respondents 1 and 2 in favour of respondents 5 to 16.
While the SARFAESI Act provides a remedy of an appeal under Section 17 thereof, even if there is merit in the submission of Dr.P.B.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to go into such questions, then, in the absence of any remedy under the said Act, the petitioners would then have the common law remedy of approaching the competent civil Court in this regard. In any view of the matter, allegations of fraud would not, ordinarily, be examined in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Leaving it open to the petitioners to avail such legal remedies as are available to them in law, including for the alleged inaction on the part of the police officials on their complaint, the Writ Petition is dismissed. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion whether or not there has been any inaction on the part of the police officials. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ) _____________________________ (DR. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J) 30th January, 2017 JSU
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER Writ Petition No.30009 of 2012 Date: 30.01.2017 JSU