Trishul Towers Private Limited v. Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority And Others



  
        
   



 

      

 

  !

 "#  

   $ 



  

!

"
  

 "

 

  

!

"
 #


   % &

'( )# $  &# '& )# ) & * $*)# ) & #  (

")#   & (  (

")#  $  + ! # ,,, $%&'$()* "'$+, *)-./0 !

1*./2   $      "        - .#

/%--0$

1 $  2- 

   

      $   13       

3  1        

"    -      3$

$1$  $     1 $  2-%    !

 "#     13  -.#

/%--01 

 $ 1  $$

"   4



  5 6

3

  ----5)31 7  -

$  

$ ) 

     $  1 

$$

 "   3  )$      3 1   "$

1 ! #)  '  1  $

"    $$    (   55        !

 . "

 
$3 0# )-8 1  !

#$$  1 

91  3 $ 

/

"  7

 

      3$$

 1     137"3 ($39

   "3%4,

$('.

.$5 '6'4)( 7)*8%8

.7))$

.4,)- ,'/'&0  1 2 
 1
'7'/2 99 

 1   $     

3$    9  /

 7

  / 7"3 

$   %
36. In the instant case, although the respondent borrowers initially approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, but the order of the Tribunal indeed was appealable under Section 18 of the Act subject to the compliance of condition of pre-deposit and without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal, the respondent borrowers approached the High Court by filing the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution. We deprecate such practice of entertaining the writ application by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the alternative statutory remedy available under the law. This circuitous route appears to have been adopted to avoid the condition of pre- deposit contemplated under 2nd proviso to Section 18 of the 2002 Act."


 
 

  1) 



 

 $  $ 1 1 '     3 1   8 9

: )$   

$  1 

 "

  2



1#


 2 %/:

0 



""



; $'

"+  < +2 ;$1 < +2