Dismissed

M/S N.S. Packaging and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC6 Nov 2019WRIC/29492/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The court held that disputes over outstanding amounts and account inaccuracies fall within the domain of the Debt Recovery Tribunal under Sections 14 and 17, not the writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no writ is issued quashing the impugned notice.

M/S N.S. Packaging and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and… — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29492 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S N.S. Packaging And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sundeep Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Himanshu Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Sundeep Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Himanshu Rai, learned counsel for the Allahabad Bank.

¶6

The petitioners have filed this petition challenging the notice dated 03.05.2019 issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short "SARFAESI Act") so as to recover the outstanding amount of Rs. 54,93,707/-.

¶7

On the last occasion, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that after the issuance of the aforesaid notice, the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs. 35,00,000/-.

¶8

On verification, learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that as on date, only a sum of Rs. 18,57,907.52/- is outstanding against the petitioners. The notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act is not in the nature of a final order and the petitioners can always file objections against the same.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that after the aforesaid notice, the petitioners have also been served with a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. The said notice can be assailed by the petitioners by taking recourse to the proceedings under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the D.R.T.

¶10

The petitioners contend that the amount shown to be outstanding is incorrect and very well established by the statement of the account inasmuch as it contains wrong entries.

¶11

The above aspect of the matter is not within the domain of the writ court as it involves factual aspects and leading of the evidence which can easily be taken care of in proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

¶12

In view of the facts and circumstances, we do not consider it

¶13

appropriate to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in the matter and as such declines to issue any writ quashing the impugned notice.

¶14

The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly.

¶15

Order Date :- 6.11.2019 Vikram/-

M/S N.S. Packaging and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S N.S. Packaging and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jamat Ali Vs U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and 3 Others

Vikas Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Girish Chandra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jay Singh and 49 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sanjay Shankar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Others

Vahid Khan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others