AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pankaj Purohit, J
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
By means of this petition, petitioner has challenged the notice issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (to be referred to as ‘the Act’) whereby the symbolic possession of the ‘secured asset’ was directed to be transferred to the secured creditor i.e. the Bank.
It is contended by learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner is the purchaser of the secured asset which he purchased after the property was mortgaged with the secured creditor i.e. the bank.
Having regard to the facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the remedy available to the petitioner lies only in the Debts Recovery Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 by moving an appropriate application u/s 17 of the Act of 2002, more particularly, after the amendment was incorporated in Section 17 of the said Act w.e.f. 01.09.2016.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.