The High Court declined to entertain a writ petition challenging an order under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act, noting the availability of an alternate efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the Act. The petition was disposed of keeping points open for appropriate proceedings.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.13098 OF 2024
Sudhir Gangabisan Kalantri .. Petitioner Vs. ICICI Bank Ltd., Pune and Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Tushar N. Sonawane with Mr. Piyush Toshniwal, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Allan David, Advocate, i/by MZM Legal, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. B.V. Samant, Additional Government Pleader with Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent-State of Maharashtra.
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ
DATE : 19TH SEPTEMBER 2024
P.C. :
[ RAJESH S. PATIL, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]
1/1
Digitally signed by SNEHA SNEHA ABHAY ABHAY DIXIT DIXIT Date: 2024.09.19 17:58:25 +0530
905-WP-13098-2024.doc Dixit
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act barring writ jurisdiction?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sudhir Gangabisan Kalantri
ICICI Bank Ltd., Pune
Respondent Nos.1 and 2
State of Maharashtra
A.S. CHANDURKAR
RAJESH S. PATIL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
