Dismissed

Punjab and Sind Bank v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC5 Nov 2019WRIC/35301/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order recalling a Section 14 SARFAESI Act order and directing fresh reconsideration was dismissed. The Court held no prejudice warranted extraordinary jurisdiction, leaving the Petitioner to approach the authorities.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach the Authority concerned for appropriate order for reconsideration of application under Section 14 afresh.

Punjab and Sind Bank Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 29

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35301 of 2019 Petitioner :- Punjab And Sind Bank Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kant Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

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

¶4

Heard Sri Krishna Kant Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner Punjab and Sind Bank and learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 3.

¶5

The petitioner has preferred this petition so as to challenge the order dated 08.07.2019 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Nagar), Bareilly whereby he has recalled the earlier order dated 03.01.2019 passed by him under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act and has directed for reconsideration of the application under Section 14 of the Act afresh.

¶6

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order is without jurisdiction as there is no power under the Act for the review of an order already passed.

¶7

A bare reading of the impugned order reveals that the authority below has not exercised the power of substantive review rather that of the procedural review inasmuch as the respondents were not given any notice or opportunity of hearing before passing the earlier order. In such circumstances, if the order passed under Section 14 of the Act has been recalled and the matter has been directed to be reconsidered afresh on merits, it is not a case which has caused any prejudice to the petitioner so as to warrant exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court.

¶8

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we decline to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction in the matter and the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the authority concerned for an appropriate order. The petitioner, if so likes, may also raise the question of jurisdiction of the authority below and request for the decision in the matter by the District Magistrate.

¶9

The writ petition is dismissed .

¶10

Order Date :- 5.11.2019 Nirmal Sinha

Punjab and Sind Bank v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punjab and Sind Bank v. State of U.P. and 7 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

Ajit Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sneh Malhotra and Another Vs the Federal Bank Limited and 2 Others

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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