The petitioner challenged an action under the SARFAESI Act after his account was declared NPA. The High Court dismissed the writ petition as the beneficiary had already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17, rendering this petition incomplete.
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.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010005612021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/210/2021
M/S MAHAGURU BIBHUTI NARAYAN AYURVEDIC CENTRE REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR, SRI DURLAV SARMA, S/O LATE GOPINATH SARMA, GANA PATH, KHANAPARA, GUWAHATI, PIN 781022, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE BANK OF INDIA REP BY CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER AND 4 ORS
SARB BRANCH, 2ND FLOOR, SIGNATURE SQUARE, MRD, ROAD, BAMUNIMAIDAM, GUWAHATI 781021 (IFSC CODE SBIN 000221)
2:THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER AND CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER SARB BRANCH 2ND FLOOR SIGNATURE SQUARE M.R.D. ROAD BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI 81021 (IFSC CODE SBIN000221)
3:THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM 781006 (IFSC CODE SBIN0003030)
4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM DIST. MAGISTRATE
KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI ASSAM.
5:THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER AND EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE
KAMRUP (M) GUWAHATI
Page No.# 2/2
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P CHITTAWAT
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
01.03.2021
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, CJ)
Heard Mr. P. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. D. Doley, learned Government Advocate for the respondent nos. 4 and 5.
The petitioner had taken a loan from the respondent bank and as the petitioner could not repay the loan, his account was declared as NPA. Thereafter a proceeding under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act has been initiated by the secured creditor/respondent bank against the petitioner.
By now the symbolic possession has already been taken but physical possession has not been taken. It is again an admitted case that the petitioner has already approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal by filing an appeal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
In view thereof, there is no useful purpose by keeping the petition pending as the petitioner has already availed statutory remedy.
This petitions stands dismissed in the above terms.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be retained pending adjudication by the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s Mahaguru Bibhuti Narayan Ayurvedic Centre represented by its sole proprietor, Sri Durlav Sarma
The State Bank of India
Sudhanshu Dhulia
Manash Ranjan Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
