This court dismissed the writ petition challenging a notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, holding that the remedy under Section 17 of the Act is the appropriate forum.
The writ petition against the notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was 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. - 9502 of 2021
Petitioner :- Gupta Pharma Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajeet Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Mani Shukla
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Deepak Verma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shyam Mani Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents-bank.
The petitioner seeks to challenge the notice issued under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
The remedy before the petitioner is to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, 2002.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed .
Order Date :- 16.3.2021 Meenu
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition is maintainable to challenge a notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
Whether the petitioner is the proper forum to remedy the challenge against the notice under Section 17 of the Act, 2002.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Gupta Pharma
State Of U P
Sunita Agarwal
Deepak Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
