Dismissed

Raj Kishor Sharma and Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Jharkhand HC7 Jan 2015WPC/3601/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners challenged a possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act issued by Bank of Baroda. The Court dismissed the petition holding that an alternative remedy existed via the Debt Recovery Tribunal and citing Supreme Court guidelines against bypassing statutory remedies.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable.

Raj Kishor Sharma and Anr. Vs The State Of Jharkhand And… — Cheque Dishonour | Jharkhand HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 3601 of 2013

¶3

Raj Kishor Sharma

¶4

Rajesh Sharma ..... Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand

¶7

District Certificate Officer, Ranchi

¶8

Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Ranchi …. Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR For the Petitioners : None For the State : J.C. to S.C. (L & C) -----

¶10

3 /07.01.2015 Seeking quashing of notice dated 06.06.2013 issued by the respondent- Bank of Baroda, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

¶11

2. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent- State of Jharkhand raised a preliminary objection, as to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶12

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are summerised thus;

¶13

The petitioners secured a loan of Rs.7 lacs from the respondent- Bank of Baroda and they mortgaged land appertaining to Bariatu Thana No.192, Khata No.46, Plot No.880, admeasuring 2 Kathas 9 Chhataks. A notice dated 08.12.2012 was issued to the petitioners for discharging the loan liability as, the petitioners had defaulted in payment of the loan amount. The objection under Section 13(3)(A) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 of the petitioners was rejected by the respondent- Bank of Baroda and thereafter, notice

¶14

¶15

dated 06.06.2013 was issued under Section 13(4) of the Act demanding possession of the mortgaged property. Against the said notice, the petitioners have approached this Court.

¶16

4. On 05.01.2015, when the mater was called out, counsel for the petitioners was absent. Today, when the matter is called out, a request for pass over was made on behalf of counsel for the petitioners. Again, the matter is called out however, the counsel for the petitioners is absent.

¶17

5. From the materials brought on record, I do not find any reason to entertain this writ petition. The petitioners have alternative remedy challenging the notice dated 06.06.2013 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Ranchi. In “United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others” , reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

¶18

55. “It is a matter of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the High Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAESI Act and exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for passing orders which have serious adverse impact on the right of banks and other financial institutions to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the High Courts will exercise their discretion in such matters with greater caution, care and circumspection.”

¶19

6. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶20

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

¶21

R.K.

Raj Kishor Sharma and Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kishor Sharma and Anr. v. The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

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

Similar cases

Amrita Devi Vs the State of Jharkhand and Others

Krishna Kumar Singh Vs The Dy Chairman Ranchi Regional Development Authority And Ors.

Ms a K Travels through Its Proprietor Sri Arbind Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs Health Medical Education And Family Welfare Dept

Ganesh Kumar Singh Vs Anita Devi

Dr.Sanjay Kumar Suman Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ms Baldeo Choudhary Bijay Kumar Thr Its Proprietor Sri Bijay Kumar Choudhary Vs Food Supply