The Court held that the petitioner's remedy lies in filing an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act before the Debt Recovery Tribunal rather than pursuing a writ petition, and consequently disposed of the writ petition.
Writ Petition disposed of; Petitioner directed to file appeal under Section 17 SARFAESI Act.
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.
1/2
(WP 1908 OF 2016).
vat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No. 1908 OF 2016
Mrs. Rekha Ramesh Lodha and Anr. ….Petitioners Vs. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. And Ors. ….Respondents
Mr.Sitesh S. Sharma for Petitioners
Mr. Nikhil Rajani i/b. Mr. V. Deshpande and Co. for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
CORAM : V. M. KANADE &
M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
DATE : MARCH 23, 2016
P.C. :
Bank submits that the Petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of
filing an appeal under section 17 of the Securitisation and
Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002.
2/2
(WP 1908 OF 2016).
four weeks.
M.S. KARNIK, J. V.M. KANADE, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of filing a writ petition or should approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal via appeal under Section 17 SARFAESI Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mrs. Rekha Ramesh Lodha and Anr.
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Ors.
V. M. Kanade
M. S. Karnik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
