Rakesh Jewellers & Vastralay v. State of U. P. and Others
2011-05-25
RAJESH CHANDRA, SATYA POOT MEHROTRA
body2011
DigiLaw.ai
Satya Poot Mehrotra and Rajesh Chandra, JJ.— 1. As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the petitioner took Cash Credit Facility from the Respondent No.3- State Bank of India for business purpose. 2. The property in question was given as security for the said facility. 3. The petitioner committed default in payment of the said loan. Consequently, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short " the Securitisation Act") have been initiated for sale of the secured asset. Possession Notice dated 10.5.2011 has been issued in this regard. 4. The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, inter-alia, praying for quashing the Possession Notice dated 10.5.2011. The petitioner in the present Writ Petition is impugning the proceedings being taken against him under the Securitization Act on various grounds. 5. We have heard Shri Hemendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel and Sri A.C.Tiwari, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3. 6. In United Bank of India Vs. Satyavati Tandon & others reported in 2010 (8) SCC 110 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have laid down that in view of the alternative remedy available under the Securitization Act, the High Court in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should normally not interfere in respect of the proceedings being taken under the said Act. 7. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tandon & others (supra) and keeping in view the nature of controversy involved in the present Writ Petition, we are of the opinion that it will be appropriate that the petitioner be relegated to the alternative remedy available to him of filing an Appeal/Application under Section 17 of the Securitization Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 8. We accordingly dismiss the Writ Petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner by filing an Appeal/Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitization Act.