On the petitioner's absence, the High Court held the writ petition premature as the petitioner must first avail statutory remedies under the SARFAESI Act. A liberty was granted to exhaust those remedies before approaching the court.
Writ petition dismissed as premature with liberty to exhaust statutory remedies available under the 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18686 of 2010
====================================================== Md.Alamgir S/O Ekbal Hussain @ Ekbas Hussain R/O Mohalla - Naya Talo, Ward No.- 17, P.O. + P.O. - Bettiah Town, Distt. West Champaran, Pin No. 845438 .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State Bank of India through its General Manager, Local Head Office R/O Patna ( Bihar ) 2. The General Manager R/O Local Head Office, Patna ( Bihar ) 3. The Zonal Manager 4. The Branch Manager R/O State Bank of India, Bettiah Branch, Bettiah, (Branch Code 00035 ) Teen Lalten Chowk, Near Ajanta Cinema, Distt. West Champaran .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s : Dr.Binay Kumar Singh , Advocate Mr.Hemant Sharma, Advocate Mr.Amit Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER -------------- 3 24-04-2015 Despite repeated calls, none appears on behalf of the petitioner in support of the present writ petition The matter at issue is the action taken by the respondent State Bank of India under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (in short, “SARFAESI Act,”). Under the scheme of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner has got statutory remedy under Section 13(3-A) and thereafter if any action is taken under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, he would have further remedy under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act. Therefore, the submission raised on behalf of the respondent Bank that the present petition is premature appears to be correct.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18686 of 2010 (3) dt.24-04-2015
2/2
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as premature, but with a liberty to the petitioner to exhaust the alternative statutory remedies available to him under the SARFAESI Act.
(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)
Tahir/-
U
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging action under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act is premature.
Whether statutory remedies under Sections 13(3-A), 13(4), and 17(1) preclude immediate writ jurisdiction.
Whether the petitioner should be granted liberty to exhaust alternative statutory remedies.
4 provisions across 1 enactments
Md.Alamgir
State Bank of India
BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
