Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1339 (ALL)

Abdul Rashid v. State of U. P. and Others

2011-05-25

RAJESH CHANDRA, SATYA POOT MEHROTRA

body2011
Satya Poot Mehrotra and Rajesh Chandra, JJ. - We have heard Shri Ashfaq Ahmad Ansari, the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Shri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. Allahabad Bank. 2. As per the averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner took loan for business purposes from the respondent No. 4, Allahabad Bank in the year 2003. The property in question was given as security. 3. The petitioner committed default in payment of the said loan Consequently, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction o" Financial Assets and Enforcement o Security Interest Act, 2002 (in shor "the Act") have been initiated. 4. Shri Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4-Allahabad Bank has obtained instructions in the matter. On the basis of the instructions, he states that an advertisement was issued in the Newspaper for sale of the secured asset inviting tenders by 21.1.2011. He further states that pursuant to the said advertisement, secured asset has been sold in favour of one Phool Chand. 5. In United Bank of India v. Satyavati Tandon and others, 2010 (8) SCC 110 : 2010 (5) AWC 5098 (SC). their Lordships of the Surpeme Court have laid down that in view of the alternative remedy available under the 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 Act. The present writ petition has been filed impugning the proceedings being taken under the Act on various grounds. 6. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court and having regard to the nature of the controversy involved in the present writ petition, we are of the opinion that the petitioner be relegated to avail the alternative remedy of filing appeal/application under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy available to the petitioner of filing appeal/application under Section 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.