The court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of a notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, holding that the petitioner had an alternative remedy available under Section 17(1) of the same Act.
Quashing of the notice dated 9.10.2020 dismissed on the ground of 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. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6319 of 2021
Petitioner :- Mahesh Narayan Respondent :- Baroda U.P.Bank And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajan Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Shyam Mani Shukla
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Supplementary affidavit, filed today, is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
The petitioner is seeking for quashing of the notice dated 9.10.2020 issued under Section 13(4) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SARFAESI Act, 2002').
Against any of the measures taken by the bank under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal under Section17(1) of the Act 2002.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy.
Order Date :- 23.2.2021 Meenu
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition for quashing of a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act is maintainable despite the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 17(1).
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahesh Narayan
Baroda U.P.Bank And Another
Sunita Agarwal
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
