CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Abdul Rashid vs State of U. P. and others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 25 May 2011 · Citation: (2011) 5 AWC 4824

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satya Poot Mehrotra, J · Rajesh Chandra, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 · Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI) — Section 17
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
C.M.W.P. No. 18822 of 2011
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 344 words

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 of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short "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 Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others, . their Lordships of the Supreme 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 u/s 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 u/s 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.