Ganpat Lal Panwar S/o Shri Parumal Mali vs State of Rajasthan

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the

proceeding initiated against them for recovery of outstanding dues

by the respondent-ICICI Bank(''Bank''). The petitioners have also

questioned validity of notice issued by the respondent-Bank under

Section 13(4) of Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short

"the Act") for taking possession of the secured assets.

Indisputably, the petitioners are aggrieved by the measures

adopted by the respondent-Bank for enforcement of the security

interest in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act.

Against the measures adopted by the secured creditor under

Section 13(4) of the Act, a remedy of appeal is available to the

petitioners u/s 17 of the Act. As per provisions of sub-section (3)

of Section 17, if the Debt Recovery Tribunal after examining the

facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence produced by

the parties comes to the conclusion that any measures referred to

in sub-section (4) of Section 13 by the secured creditor are not

in accordance with the provisions of the Act or the Rules made

thereunder then, it can declare the recourse to any one or more

measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 taken by the

secured creditor as invalid and restore the possession of the

secured assets to the borrower. Thus, in view of availability of

effective & efficacious remedy to the petitioners against the

impugned action under the relevant statute, there is absolutely no

reason, why the petitioners should be permitted to invoke extra

ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine.