Mohd. Salman vs State Bank of India and another

Satya Poot Mehrotra and Rajesh Chandra, JJ.—We have heard Shri Mohd. Arif, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-State Bank of India.

As per the averments made in the writ petition, cash credit facility was taken by the respondent No. 2 from the respondent No. 1-State Bank of India. Default was committ� in respect of the said facility. Consequently, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short " the Act") have been initiated. The Notice dated 18.1.2011 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and the notice dated 15.3.2011 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) have been issued under sub-section (4) of Section 13 of the Act for taking possession of the asset given as security for the said facility.

In United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others, 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, inter alia, praying for quashing the said notices.

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 respondent No 2 be relegated to avail the alternative remedy of filing appeal/application u/s 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy available to the respondent No. 2 of filing appeal/application u/s 17 of the Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.