The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Savita Devi against Central Bank of India, accepting the respondent's caveat that an alternative remedy exists under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Dismissal of the writ petition.
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. - 37
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20546 of 2019
Petitioner :- Savita Devi Respondent :- Central Bank Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhananjay Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Gyan Prakash Shrivastava
Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
Shri Gyan Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
Order Date :- 24.6.2019 Amit Mishra
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Savita Devi
Central Bank Of India
2 Others
Ram Surat Ram
Piyush Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
