The court held that the petitioner has an alternative remedy by approaching the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act and dismissed the writ petition.
The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner had an alternative remedy.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21388 of 2018
Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Vishwakarma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kundan Kumar,Rakhi Kumari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Agrawal
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
For the grievances raised by the petitioner in the present petition, he has an alternative remedy of approaching the Dept Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Securitisation And Reconstruction Of Financial Assets And Enforcement Of Security Interest Act, 2002.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.6.2018 Jyotsana
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be maintained given the availability of alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
Raj Kumar Vishwakarma
State Of U.P.
Sunita Agarwal
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
