This writ petition sought to quash a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. The court dismissed the petition, stating that respondents must avail the statutory remedy under Section 17(1) of the Act.
No writ relief granted; petition dismissed.
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. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35287 of 2018
Petitioner :- Amit Rathi And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adya Prasad Tewari,Diwakar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arvind Srivastava
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Adya Prasad Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.
This writ petition has been filed praying to quash the impugned notice dated 25.09.2018 under Section 13(4) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 issued by respondent No.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have a remedy under Section 17(1) of the Act and therefore, they intend to avail the said remedy.
In view of the stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioners, this writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the remedy under Section 17(1) of the Act.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 Nitin Verma
1 issue framed by the court
Whether writ jurisdiction is available to quash a notice under Section 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 when Section 17(1) remedy is available.
Amit Rathi And 3 Others
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Amit Sthalekar
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
