CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Rajendra Kumar Sharma vs Allahabad Bank and Another

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 7 July 2011 · Citation: (2012) 1 BC 280

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
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 35280 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

7 paragraphs · 351 words
1.

Supplementary affidavit has been filed today on behalf of the petitioner. Let the same be placed on record. As per averments made in the writ petition, the petitioner took loan from the respondent No. 2-Allahabad Bank for purchasing a Flat in the year 2008. The property in question was given as security for the said loan.

2.

The petitioner committed default in payment of the said loan. Consequently, proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short "the Securitization Act") have been initiated against the petitioner.

3.

Mr. P.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 states that the property given as security for the said loan has already been auctioned and sold and sale certificate has been issued on 28.6.2011.

4.

The petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition impugning the proceedings being taken against him under the Securitization Act on various grounds.

5.

We have heard Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

6.

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 Securitization 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 said Act.

7.

In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tandon & Others (supra) and keeping in view the nature of controversy involved in the present Writ Petition, we are of the opinion that it will be appropriate that the petitioner be relegated to the alternative remedy available to him of filing an Appeal/Application u/s 17 of the Securitization Act before the Debts Recovery Tribunal. We accordingly dismiss the Writ Petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner by filing an Appeal/Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal u/s 17 of the Securitization Act.