Petitioner filed a writ petition to quash an E-Auction notice issued by Bank of Baroda under the SRA 2002. The Court held that an alternative remedy exists under Section 17 of the Act and dismissed the petition as not maintainable.
The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable; I.A. No. 729/2021 was also dismissed.
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 JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 434 of 2021
Rajesh ….. Petitioner
Versus
….. Respondents
----- CORAM
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
----For the Petitioner: Mr. Krishna Shankar For the Bank: Mr. Rohan Kashyap
02/08.02.2021 The case is taken up through Video Conferencing.
At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the office are ignored.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the notice dated 14.01.2021 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.1 informing the petitioner that the dues of the respondent-Bank against the petitioner will be realised through sale of the mortgaged property on ‘as is where is’ and ‘whatever is’ basis through E-Auction. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to inform the petitioner regarding the terms and conditions of one time settlement under ‘LAKSHYAAgri/Retail/MSME Scheme’.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the impugned E-Auction sale notice dated 14.01.2021 has been issued under Rules 6(2) & 8(6) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 in exercise of power conferred under Section 13(4)(a) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 2002’) against which the petitioner has got alternative/efficacious/statutory remedy of preferring an application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act, 2002, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition at this stage and the same is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable.
The petitioner is however at liberty to take appropriate recourse against
the impugned notice dated 14.01.2021 issued by the respondent No.1 as
permissible under law.
Consequently, I.A. No. 729/2021 also stands dismissed.
(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)
Satish/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging an E-Auction notice under the SRA 2002 is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy exists under Section 17.
Whether the High Court is inclined to entertain the writ petition at the stage of issuance of the auction notice.
Whether the petitioner has any alternative efficacious remedy against the impugned notice.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajesh
Bank of Baroda
Rajesh Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
