Dismissed

M/S Bharat Pradhan Filling Center Macha Thru. Prop. Safiya Khatoon v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Oct 2024/8619/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable since the borrower has an efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The court directed the Tribunal to proceed expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner relegated to remedy under Section 17 of Act 2002 before Debt Recovery Tribunal; writ petition disposed of.

M/S Bharat Pradhan Filling Center Macha Thru. Prop… — Banking and Recovery | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:68241

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8619 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- M/S Bharat Pradhan Filling Center Macha Thru. Prop. Safiya Khatoon Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Civil Sectt. Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Upadhyay,Diksha Tiwari,Saurabh Upadhyay,Vishal Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brajendra Amiy

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Anil Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Manu Dixit, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.

¶7

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is a borrower and has obtained a cash credit limit from the respondent No. 3-bank and subsequently the petitioner has been declared to be a NPA and recovery proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2002') has been initiated against the petitioner.

¶8

It is in pursuance of the aforesaid proceedings that in exercise of the powers under Section 14 of the Act of 2002, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has passed an order or taking possession of the secured assets. Subsequently a notice has also been published for auction of the secured assets on 06.9.2024 and the petitioner being aggrieved by both the orders namely order dated 02.07.2004 and 06.09.2024 have been assailed in the present writ petition.

¶9

Sri Manu Dixit, learned counsel for respondents-bank has submitted that present writ petition is not maintainable inasmuch the petitioner has an efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. He further submits that the petitioner can raise all the objections raised in the present case assailing the action of the bank under the Act of 2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. He further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tandon, 2010 (8) SCC 110 , where Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that High Courts should not exercise the jurisdiction under

¶10

Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India and relegate the borrower before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.

¶11

At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that he may be relegated to his alternate remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and submits that the Debt Recovery Tribunal may be directed to expedite the case of the petitioner.

¶12

In light of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the Act of 2002. Accordingly, he is relegated to his remedy before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is provided that in case the petitioner files an application under Section 17 of the Act of 2002 within next two weeks, the Debt Recovery Tribunal shall proceed to consider and decide the same expeditiously including any application for interim order given by the petitioner shall also be considered.

¶13

With the above, observations / direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶14

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 3.10.2024

¶16

Ravi/

¶17

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S Bharat Pradhan Filling Center Macha Thru. Prop. Safiya Khatoon v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Bharat Pradhan Filling Center Macha Thru. Prop. Safiya Khatoon v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Civil Sectt. Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prahlad Narayan Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy.Deptt.of Transport Civil Sectt.andORS.

Saleem Akhtar Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Transport Deptt.Lko. and Ors.

Altaful Hasan Vs State of U.P.Thru Its Secy.Deptt.of Transport Lucknow and Ors.

Rampher @ Ramafere Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others

Neelam Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Govt. Lko. and 5 Others

Tilak Ram Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 5 Others